Order! I should just like to bring to the attention of honourable members that the new Standing Rules of Parliament come into operation today. Under the new Rules there will no longer be Committee Stages and all business will be controlled by the elected presiding officers from this Chair.

†I also want to point out to honourable members that the presiding officer will in future call on members to speak in accordance with a list of speakers supplied to the presiding officer in advance. A speaker will be allotted a certain time for his speech by his whips and he will be interrupted by the presiding officer when the time allotted to him has expired. In terms of the Rules a member may not speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time on a Vote.

Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Mr Speaker, in the place of the draft resolution printed in my name on the Order Paper, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, before I begin with my actual speech, let me just say that it is also with regret that we in the CP have learned of the death of Mr Wennie du Plessis who was an exceptional person as a politician and parliamentarian, and also subsequently in the sphere of foreign affairs. He represented South Africa with singular distinction and dignity abroad. We also want to place on record our appreciation for his services in this House.

In speaking about the activities of South Africa’s Department of Foreign Affairs one can probably compare these to a mosaic. Or perhaps the term “chequer-board” would be more appropriate.

I shall pick up one or two of the tessolas and study them more closely, or place my finger on one or two of the chequer-board pieces, touching upon a few subjects and leaving my hon colleagues to go into the others in more detail.

The emergence of Mr Mikhail Gorbachev in the past year or two has elicited great interest. His “glasnost” and his “perestroika” have become household terms, and it was foreseeable that ultimately relations between the RSA and the USSR would also be affected in some or other way.

We were therefore not surprised when the South African Government made a move. What struck one, however, was that the first signal came from the hon the Minister of Defence and that it was a comprehensive signal.

As far as we are concerned the dialogue with the USSR is a foreign affair, and we wonder why the hon the Minister of Defence was singled out to send out that signal. We also wonder to whom the signal was actually being sent—to Moscow or Washington? We also wonder with what degree of seriousness the signal was sent. We also wonder about the timing of the signal.

All those in the know will tell one that if one wants to talk to the Russians, one has to speak from a position of strength. So often we have seen that even the mighty USA cannot get very far with the Russians. For them, as is always the case where foreign affairs are concerned, the relevant party’s interests are made paramount. I shall come back to that at a later stage; firstly I merely want to refer to another aspect of the mosaic.

Another chequer-board piece that one can put one’s finger on is South Africa’s disagreements with the USA and the UN. During the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote last year my hon leader referred to the American State Department. On the strength of that the hon the State President thought fit to give him a lecture about America and various bodies in America which have to be distinguished from one another. We have also become accustomed to being told by the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs that we cannot provoke the outside world.

Then, immediately after the by-elections in Standerton and Schweizer-Reneke, one gets a dramatic about-face. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs tells the Security Council: “You can do your damnedest!”, and both he and the hon the State President castigate Western countries about their interference. The hon the State President was quoted as follows in the Weekly Mail of 10 March, 1988:

I hesitate to ask, because I fear an affirmative answer, but was this challenge to the world, were these insults to the USA, a considered step, or was this a political move with one eye fixed on the Randfontein by-election which was still in the offing? [Interjections.] Hon members on that side of the House can make as much noise as they like; we are not the ones asking those questions— those questions are being asked throughout the Western World, and perhaps even further afield. We hope that was not the case, that that was not the reason for those insults and outbursts, because it would have been criminal, for the sake of one seat, to have adopted an attitude towards countries abroad which could be described, in certain respects, as being terminal, in the short term at least.

On television on Thursday evening, 8 March, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he himself had written those words for Mr Manley.

In his explanation he said that if South Africa were completely isolated as a result, if the UN were to decide upon mandatory sanctions, that would be the test to determine whether South Africa could maintain its position against the world.

Let me now say, on behalf of my party, that we do not seek confrontation with the world, but if it is a question of South Africa’s sovereign integrity and survival as a White state, this party will do nothing which did not put the interests of South Africa first. [Interjections] Here I am speaking about South Africa’s interests, however, and not a political party’s interests.

This brings me back to the South African-Russian issue. When the hon the Minister of Defence made his statement, South Africa was very much at odds with its Western allies. There was even an insinuation that the USA had become irrelevant in the South African theatre of activities.

I am saying these things clinically; we are not crying about this, because at this stage we are simply spectators, but my question is the following: If South Africa was serious about the signal that it sent to Mr Gorbachev, was that the right moment to have done it? In the customary excitement that followed upon the hon the Minister of Defence’s statement, it almost seemed as if South Africa “wanted to change horses in midstream”. That is how it was interpreted in certain quarters. The problem with “changing horses in midstream” is that one could fall between the two horses and drown, or the horse one was trying to mount could sink. Outwardly the Russian reaction was what one could have predicted; it was “njet”. I do not want to elaborate on that any further. I merely want to say that if the Government is serious, it must spell out the “how’s” and the “how many’s”. It cannot leave things dangling in the air like that.

In the past, approximately every 10 or 15 years— perhaps it was a little less—noises have been made about South Africa assuming a position of greater neutrality in the world and about South Africa also giving some thought to diplomatic relations with the communist world, but those statements were made and then left at that. We are wondering whether this is a similar exercise, or whether there is more to it. If there is more to it, apart from the principle involved in talking to the Russians and negotiating with them, the CP will also judge the Government in terms of the “how’s” and the “how many’s”.

Last week the Angolan issue was very much in the news. We see that the hon the Minister is here, even though the Press was speculating that he would be somewhere in Africa this week involved in further negotiations, and we should like to discuss this with the hon the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Soutpansberg mentioned “glasnost” and “perestroika”. He spoke about the signal sent out by the hon the Minister of Defence, USA relations and the stance adopted by this Government at the UN. However, he then made a very unfortunate remark which one really cannot allow to go unanswered. According to him these standpoints adopted by the Government had been a challenge to the world in order to gain short-term party-political advantage in a byelection in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I was overseas recently. I was in London when action was taken against the 17 organizations. The argument advanced by South Africa’s enemies was that this was a deliberate attempt to create a strong-man image for the NP Government to enable it to do well in the by-elections. The hon member should realize that this kind of remark adds fuel to the fire of South Africa’s enemies. It is a ridiculous statement! For the rest, the hon member said very little I can react to.

†One only has to subject oneself for a very short time to the company of certain elements in the Western World, to the representatives of frontline states, to the foreign media, to radical leftwing representatives from South Africa and to our own liberal establishment of academics and the Press and to experience the naive, simplistic, subjective and hypocritical evaluation of present developments in this country to realise what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the hon the Deputy Minister and this department, but in particular our missions abroad, have to endure on behalf of all of us in South Africa.

South Africans from all walks of life and hon members as politicians make overseas visits. We go there as ambassadors and we are also subjected to these vicious attacks. However, we come back to South Africa and we leave them there—the missions of South Africa—all on their own to be subjected to the hypocritical and vicious attacks of the outside world again day after day after day.

Therefore, when we discuss Foreign Affairs in this House, it is appropriate for us on this side of the House to place on record our heartfelt thanks to those who are involved in the foreign affairs of South Africa. We pay tribute to a small but very dedicated group of men and women who, with the limited finances available to them and coping with an overwhelming hostility against them, do a sterling job on behalf of South Africa.

I want to deal with a matter of grave concern. I want to express my concern about the false promises and the false expectations created among our Black fellow South Africans by some elements in the Western World and by the frontline states in particular. Expectations are created that the so-called “Pretoria regime” will be brought to its knees with punitive economic sanctions, a committed programme of isolation and active support of terrorist activities. Obviously they fail dismally because moderation in South Africa also among our fellow Black South Africans has rejected their miserable approach with the contempt it deserves.

Except for the futile attempts by certain senators and representatives from Capitol Hill in the United States of America, the outspoken president of the Association of Western European Parliaments for Action Against Apartheid said the following at a conference at Harare during March 1988:

Besides those of elements in the United States and Europe, we hear voices from places closer to South Africa. Utterances from frontline state politicians are similarly insane. I quote what the widow of the late President Machel said in January 1988:

The following is another example:

That was what Dr Pascoal Mocumbi, the Foreign Minister of Mozambique, said in January 1988.

The false expectations they create can be summarised by the following: Scrap “apartheid”, get rid of the so-called “Pretoria regime” in South Africa and utopia will descend on South and Southern Africa.

Fortunately, those who care to take an objective view realise only too well that this simplistic and hypocritical outcry is nothing but hollow a propaganda ploy against South Africa. We want to say to those people, to the cap-in-hand Kaundas, to the one-party-state Mugabes of Africa and their likes that they are hiding their own countries’ deterioration and miseries, poverty, failure and demise behind South Africa.

I wish to give an example. I was told in Britain in February that trade between Britain and South Africa had increased by 8% in 1987, whilst British trade with Zimbabwe, the country which is being held up to us as an example of how a multiracial state should be governed, had decreased by 1%.

Let me give hon members a further example. In spite of the anti-South African rhetoric we hear from Zimbabwe, South Africa remains its oldest trading partner, handling 90% of its exports, 80% of its imports, and providing the rolling stock which help to keep its transport infrastructure viable. An estimated 9 000 of our railway trucks operate in our neighbouring states, not to mention the telecommunication and electricity supply and the other infrastructure which we supply to Southern Africa.

Yet we stand accused that our so-called “broadening of democracy” is nonsense, and that the socio-economic improvements are only a ploy to buy the goodwill of the oppressed Blacks in South Africa. Yes, Sir, this is the false gospel that is spread around, without spelling out the demise of democracy and the deterioration of the economy all over Africa and around us. I wish to ask: Is there democracy left in the one-party state of Zimbabwe? Is there democracy left in the wartorn Mozambique and Angola? [Interjections.]

Secondly, we stand accused that South Africa employs a dual strategy, namely, destabilising Southern Africa in order to ensure the dependence of our neighbours on the Republic of South Africa. How absurd can one get! The question is: Must we withdraw our infrastructure in Southern Africa? Must we withhold from Southern Africa the know-how in the spheres of agriculture, health and research? How one destabilises by spending millions of rands, as has been done by this Government in Mozambique on harbour facilities, repairing railway links, assisting with medical treatment, accommodating millions of Blacks in the workplace in South Africa, supplying infrastructure to the whole of Southern Africa, only those who spread these lies will be able to explain to us.

Thirdly, we stand accused that we are a threat to peace because of the steps taken to counter revolutionary forces against South Africa. Yet, South Africa is subjected to the worst form of an orchestrated attempt by the SACP-inspired ANC and its surrogates to foster civil disobedience, to create revolutionary alternatives, to disrupt the economy by abusing trade unions for political ends, and to campaign openly for violence in South Africa. Surely any self-respecting country must secure the safety of its people and maintain orderly government.

Fourthly, we stand accused that we—I use the words that I heard overseas—“deny 26 million Black opponents of apartheid a share in the decision-making process in South Africa”. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I have no time to deal with the whistling in the dark of the hon member for Turffontein that we have just listened to. I want to tell him that what our missions overseas have to endure is due entirely to the actions of this Government. The banning of the 17 organisations is an excellent case in point. I wish to point out to him that he totally underrates the genuine moral outrage overseas at the actions of this Government in maintaining the apartheid structures it does maintain and in maintaining racially discriminatory laws on the Statute Book. I grant him that there is a measure of expediency, but there is no doubt that there is moral outrage as well. The hon member ought not to deceive himself and try to deceive his fellow members on the other side.

I make no apology for once again raising a subject that I discussed in this House only a few weeks ago. I do so because I believe the sanctions issue has now reached a critical stage. Last week the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a Bill by 27 votes to 14 after a four hour debate. I refer to what was known as the Dellums Bill, which is now known as the Wolpe Dellums Bill, Mr Wolpe being the chairman of the Subcommittee on Africa.

This Bill is an embargo Bill and will, inter alia, ban virtually all trade with South Africa, except US agricultural exports to the Republic and the import of strategic minerals from the Republic to the United States.

It reimposes, as the original Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 did, the prohibition against landing rights to the SAA in the USA, the sale of Krugerrands in the USA and of high-tech to South Africa—possibly one of the most important clauses in the Bill. There is also to be no military or intelligence co-operation with the SA Government.

Clause 1 lays down, and I quote: “A United States person may not directly, or through a foreign affiliate of that US person, make or hold any investment in South Africa.” The definitions clause contained in the Bill makes it clear that if the Bill is passed in its present form, this legislation would effectively enforce the disinvestment of all US companies presently operating in South Africa …

Are you in favour of that?

… the last of about 148 such companies.

It would secondly enforce US divestment of all equity in companies quoted on the JSE which are owned or controlled by South African nationals. This effectively means the great majority of the JSE companies, and according to the estimates of the Research Division of the largest stockbroking firm on the JSE—which is Davis, Borkum, Hare and Partners—about 12% of the total market capitalisation of mining shares, which is worth some R15 billion. That is the value of the shares estimated to be held in America by American investors in South African companies.

And that is a very powerful bully!

I believe it is highly dubious that the local market would be able to absorb those shares if they were thrown on the market, and it is a sobering thought indeed to contemplate the effect on the Stock Exchange in South Africa should that Bill be passed in its present form.

So we should listen to those Americans!

Why don’t you shut up?

Why don’t you?

Don’t talk rubbish!

It is true that the Bill has a fairly lengthy process ahead of it before it does become law …

Lenin’s useful idiots!

Order! What did the hon member for Germiston say?

Mr Speaker, I said the PFP are Lenin’s useful idiots.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

And shut up, too! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Houghton may continue.

The Bill now has a fairly lengthy process ahead of it …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon member for Houghton say “shut up” to the hon member for Germiston?

Order! The hon member for Houghton may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

The Bill has a fairly lengthy process ahead of it before it does become law. It could, of course, be modified or amended, and it could be dropped if it is not passed before October, before the new administration is elected in November.

Of course the Bill’s proposers want it to go through in its present form in 1988, and they are aiming at obtaining a two thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate. I understand that the former is likely, and that the latter is unlikely. The two thirds majorities are necessary in order to offset any presidential veto which may be forthcoming, but this House must be reminded that there may well be no presidential veto forthcoming if the Bill is delayed until the new administration takes over next year, because 1988 may well be the last year for a long time that South Africa has in dealing with a relatively less hostile administration in the USA.

If Dukakis and the Democrats win the election in November, I believe South Africa is in for a very torrid time indeed. All existing pressures against South Africa will be increased. Dukakis has already gone public on his support for sanctions, and Jesse Jackson and the Black Caucus will see that he implements his undertaking. I believe that the United States will then use its very considerable influence to ensure that similar steps are taken by South Africa’s other trading partners by threatening prohibitions against their imports entering the United States.

The existing sanctions already imposed by the European Community and the Commonwealth will be extended. Japan will be forced to reconsider its present attitude. It already denies visas to South Africans, except for business purposes. Neither the Thatcher nor the Kohl regime is likely to last for ever. Although I believe that both Mrs Thatcher and President Kohl will hold out as long as they can against sanctions, they are already under considerable pressure to change their attitude towards South Africa.

I believe the intelligent, adult attitude in South Africa, in the short remaining period before total isolation faces us and we end up taking in each other’s washing, would be to assist our few remaining allies against sanctions by at least refraining from provocative actions that provide such potent ammunition for the pro-sanctions lobby. I am not suggesting that the Government should hand over power tomorrow, but the least it can do is to refrain from provocative actions. This would surely be a much more adult attitude than the “let them do their damnedest” attitude. With this in mind, I believe the Government should forthwith withdraw the Orderly Internal Politics Bill because positive aid by the United States and other countries to anti-apartheid organisations is a potent argument those countries use against withdrawal and sanctions. The Government should cease threatening the alternative Press with closure. It should drop all plans to reverse the Moutse decision. It should drop the ridiculous appeal it is lodging against the Port Elizabeth mixed bathing decision. [Interjections.] It should cease harassing communities into forced removals, as is happening in Oukasie. It should also desist from raids into neighbouring countries. I believe it would be very helpful to the anti-sanctions lobby if positive actions like the release of Mandela, granting clemency to the Sharpeville Six, lifting the state of emergency and returning South Africa to the rule of law could be taken.

I ask for these things, not because of external pressures, but because I believe they will do good, internally, in South Africa. I want to tell the hon member for Soutpansberg that all this would be in the best interests of South Africa, both internally and externally.

Mr Speaker, I really find it unbelievable that when one tries to respond positively to the hypocritical criticism we get from overseas, one is told in this Parliament of South Africa that one is whistling in the dark.

You are!

I want to say that we are equally concerned about possible sanctions in South Africa.

Then why don’t you do something about it!

In fact, this hon Minister has warned South Africa over many years that a very serious danger is facing South Africa and that we must get our own house in order. That is what this Government said. However, I do not think the type of reaction that we get from the hon member for Houghton it is going to help us very much.

If there are elements in the USA who do not heed and do not listen to the rejection of possible sanctions against South Africa also by the majority of Black people in South Africa, it will be on their conscience, and perhaps also on the conscience of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Let me return to my speech! We stand accused that we deny “26 million Black opponents of apartheid” a share in the decision-making process of South Africa. While this type of remark is echoed by the PFP in South Africa, this morning’s Press carried the following recognition even by a representative of the Soviet Bloc at a meeting to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Committee Against Apartheid at the United Nations. He said the following in the presence of Boesak and Tutu. I quote:

Then he says the following:

This was said by a representative of the Soviet Bloc and yet this is denied by the PFP! [Interjections.] Their describing honest attempts as cosmetic and artificial and as “too little, too late”, has become so futile that it does not even deserve any comment from this side of the House. [Interjections.] It is a false perception which completely disregards the constitutional developments that have taken place in the TBVC countries, in the six self-governing territories, in the multiracial provincial executives, in the multiracial regional services councils, and in the hundreds of Black local authorities in South Africa, and the clearly defined efforts now also to create structures for political decision-making outside the self-governing territories as well as efforts, in spite of not getting assistance from the PFP, to try to arrange a forum for the discussion of a formula to establish participation and decision-making right to the top. [Interjections.]

I said earlier on that moderation in this world that we live in is going to reject the falsehoods that we have to deal with. The hon member for Houghton and those like her, can go and have a look together with the rest of the world at the surveys done in September 1986 by the HSRC where 59% of the Blacks rejected economic boycotts against South Africa. According to the Bureau for Information survey that was made in April and May 1986, 78% of the Blacks rejected disinvestment. In June 1987 when they repeated that survey, 89% of the Blacks said that it was a bad thing to discourage investment in South Africa, and 83% of the Blacks said it was a bad thing to prevent South African goods from being sold overseas.

What do you think we say?

This is what the Black people of South Africa say. We on this side of the House say to the PFP and to the world that “they can bluff some of the people some of the time, but they cannot bluff all the people all the time”. [Interjections.]

The moderate Black people in South Africa will side with the SA Government against the unnecessary attacks that come from the outside world.

Finally—we want to encourage the hon the Minister, because we are cautiously optimistic and we are silently encouraged by the developments in foreign quarters like the renewed contacts with Mozambique in an attempt to renew the commitment to the Nkomati Accord, the discussions on the Cuban withdrawal and the implementation of Resolution 435 in South West Africa between Angola, South Africa, Cuba and the USA, and the continuous contact with African States that is being made by this department. We want to tell the hon the Minister that we are proud of him and his department and that we will assist and back him on behalf of the South Africans in this unnecessary onslaught that we as South Africans have to endure. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I should like to put forward a few thoughts on the relationship between our country and neighbouring countries in Southern Africa. Right at the outset I want to express my gratitude for the fact that the dialogue on the Angola-South West Africa situation has apparently come on stream again. Any success in that sphere must contribute to easing the tension in Southern Africa and easing that tension can only be to the benefit of building a group of states in this part of the world which can live and co-operate with one another.

Through the UN and the OAU African states have been exerting pressure on South Africa in the sphere of sport and in numerous other spheres for more than 40 years.

This must probably be one of the principal reasons why our country finds itself in increasing isolation internationally. Consequently it is logical to accept that general pressure on South Africa will also begin to decline once the country starts gaining greater acceptance in Africa. Our way back to the international community runs through Africa.

We need not imagine that it will be easy to improve our position in Africa. In addition to the perception of the suppression of Black people, which prevails everywhere in Africa, there is also the usual feeling of being under threat. This applies to any place in the world where smaller countries have a larger neighbour. Because our capabilities are so vast, it is doubly important that we prove to our South African neighbours that our intentions regarding them and the subcontinent are good. Because we ourselves are of Africa and know African conditions, we are also in an exceptionally favourable position to furnish assistance and bring about reconciliation, because Africa is beset with enormous problems. I do not wish to elaborate on the problems facing Africa but one could perhaps rapidly sketch a few in passing.

Agricultural production in Africa is gradually decreasing every year. This leads to famine. Estimates are that within two decades Africa will no longer be able to feed itself. Today there are already five million people who are starving in Ethiopia and there are four million in Mozambique, on our border.

Deserts are spreading in Africa as a result of deforestation. There are numerous examples of institutional failures, channels of communication which have deteriorated and poor maintenance of roads, railways, air transport and telecommunications. The administration of the State and the management of the private sector is weak. Exports are dwindling and production targets are not being achieved. In addition there is an uncontrolled population growth which is causing Africa’s ability to feed itself to decrease progressively.

In almost each of these spheres we are in the best position to tackle Africa’s problems. In the spheres of agriculture, technology, the development of human resources, communications and provision of infrastructure we are in a unique position to assist in developing this subcontinent. I think, however, that it is important for us to remember that our principal objective with the proffered assistance is to cause a subcontinent of self-sufficient but interdependent states to grow into a close, co-operative and prosperous power bloc, a power bloc which can effectively curb foreign imperialism.

To accomplish this, the assistance we furnish must be development orientated. It must stimulate new economic growth and job creation and not degenerate into an unproductive distribution of charity, as was frequently the case with assistance which came from Western countries. It is equally undesirable for it to assume the form of an arms build up in the interests of imperial powers, as was frequently the case with assistance from Eastern Bloc countries.

Against this, we dare not abuse our position of power by employing our development aid as a weapon of blackmail against our neighbours in a neocolonial way, as the Official Opposition is only too ready to suggest in this House when foreign aid is discussed. Will the Official Opposition never learn that the gossip they spread about so-called misapplication of funds in Black states is the most expensive and shortsighted way possible of trying to gain votes because nothing can be more calculated to lend credibility to suspicion and allegations of destabilisation than specifically an unwillingness to recognise the independence of our neighbouring states.

†Sir, it is not possible to deal with the very extensive aid programme for which provision is made in this Budget. Suffice it to say that the department is engaged in two categories of projects—development aid and communications, or image building. I am afraid there will only be time to touch very briefly on the former.

Development aid is funded from Programme 3: Foreign Aid and Development Co-operation. For 1987-88 this was estimated to amount to R2,176 billion—86% of the department’s budget and 4% of the overall Budget of the Republic is allocated for this purpose. This is divided into a number of sub-programmes, of which the most important ones are manpower provision, budgetary aid, project aid and tax transfers.

Again time limits me, and I will only be able to mention one or two of these aspects of the programme. The secondment of public servants to these states has the object of seconding South African officials to develop states by supplying technical, professional and administrative personnel in those cases in which the governments of the countries concerned cannot meet certain demands themselves or find it impossible to recruit candidates elsewhere. The secondment of expert officials is an important instrument for development co-operation, and each secondment is preceded by a proper evaluation.

At any one time there are approximately 1 300 seconded officials in developing states in Africa, and they can be divided into the following categories. I also think it is important to take the relevant percentages into account. Officials serving in a functional capacity are just 27% of the total number, while about 1% of the total comprise officials serving in an advisory capacity. The overwhelming majority of these seconded public servants are those serving in a training capacity. They comprise no less than 72% of the total number of public servants seconded to our neighbouring countries.

In the same way project aid is given to these countries in order to promote development. Project aid is funded from the Economic Co-operation Promotion Loan Fund and is granted strictly on a project by project basis after thorough appraisal of the viability of each of the projects concerned. Stringent conditions apply to this type of aid, including normal open tender procedures. Where necessary, intergovernmental project committees are appointed to monitor the execution of these projects. Payments are made only in relation to actual progress in the execution of the project. There are at the moment 124 such projects in various stages of the project cycle, with an estimated total value of R1,068 billion, and an estimated contribution by the RSA of R641 million. These projects which are currently being executed in 11 different countries cover a wide spectrum of governmental activities, ie public order and security, education, health, housing, infrastructure and transport.

I believe it is also clear in this respect that the aid given by this country to our neighbouring countries is aimed specifically at the improvement of the opportunities for development on the part of the countries in question.

Then, Sir, we come to incentive schemes for industries. Since the inception of the amended concessions in relation to incentive schemes up to the end of March 1986 a total number of 277 industries have been established in these countries, representing an investment value of approximately R370 million and providing jobs to some 37 500 workseekers. Apart from this, the RSA also gives technical and other assistance. From time to time the RSA is approached by other governments with requests for assistance in one form or another. This type of assistance varies. It can take the form of export advice, the appraisal of projects, bursaries, donations of provisions, equipment or medical supplies and assistance in agriculture etc. Each request for assistance is considered on its own merits and in terms of established principles and practices. At the moment 196 projects in 29 different countries are in various stages of execution.

I believe these examples prove without any shadow of doubt that the allegations we hear from time to time from certain political quarters in this country that South Africa is giving aid simply in order to give hand-outs to Black countries is devoid of all truth. South African aid is aimed at the development of the subcontinent and the continued future prosperity of all of us. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, thus far in this debate little has been said which is really worth reacting to, except perhaps the hon member for Umlazi’s reference to the CP’s policy on development aid. Allow me to give the hon member the assurance that the CP would also grant development aid where necessary. It would not, however, be granted in such a way that there was no control over what happened with that development aid. [Interjections.]

We shall definitely not be guilty of impoverishing South Africa for the sake of enriching our neighbouring countries when we ourselves cannot afford it. [Interjections.]

Do you want to do it with White money?

I should like to emphasise two aspects of our foreign policy. Firstly I want to refer to the ineptitude of our foreign policy and its implementation. [Interjections.]

To substantiate this view I should like to mention a few examples of the ineptitude displayed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, particularly the Embassy in Washington. In an open letter widely distributed in America by Ambassador Koornhof—and at great cost to the South African taxpayer—the following appeared bearing his signature:

About this circular, sent by Ambassador Koornhof to various opinion-makers, an expert on the American scene had the following to say:

How would the average White South African like it if a foreign Ambassador were to write us a letter in which the words and actions of Sobukwe, Luthuli or Tutu were praised as being signposts to freedom?

I want to refer to a second example of the ineptitude of the South African Embassy in Washington. A few years ago, when Dr Connie Mulder was still Minister of Information, he paid a visit to Governor Reagan of California. At the time it was said that Dr Mulder was wasting his time in holding discussions with right-wing supporters in America. When our Department of Foreign Affairs ultimately woke up with a jolt, after Mr Reagan had been elected President, in its ignorance it grabbed at the first available straw. Instead of appointing someone who had had close dealings with Reagan, they obtained the services of a certain Mr John Sears—I should like the hon the Minister to reply to this—who has since been receiving approximately a million dollars per year for help and advice to the South African Embassy in Washington, even when this very person was immediately sent packing by Mr Reagan after he came to power.

Let us come to more recent examples in this connection. When it comes to the Press, it again appears that our Department of Foreign Affairs does not have the foggiest idea of how to influence countries abroad. Since 1984—I want the hon the Minister to reply to this—the NP Government, at the insistence of the Department of Foreign Affairs, threw open the doors to all foreign television and Press representatives who blazoned gruesome scenes about South Africa abroad. When it was already too late, the foreign Press media were subjected to censorship and control. In the USA journalists openly state today that this censorship has succeeded in its purpose. Our question is why it was not done earlier and why countries abroad first had to witness these gruesome scenes of violence in South Africa on every possible occasion before action was taken to combat it.

Another recent example relates to the bannings that took place a few months ago. Only yesterday, figuratively speaking, those banned individuals were presented to the Americans as the lawful leaders by the South African Embassy in America. No wonder the American public is sceptical about the present South African Government! In one week Dr Koornhof, in his regular personal letter to the Americans, tells them that the release of Mbeki is a precursor to further releases, and then he refers to Mandela. The following week Mbeki is banned in South Africa and any further prospects of people being released are a thing of the past.

I suppose that is inevitably what happens if one has no policy and rejects everything which has been said and done from the time of Malan to that of Verwoerd and Vorster, and if power-sharing, which is the first and final step towards surrender and the extermination of our people, is presented to the outside world as the ultimate promise for the people.

Let us come to the question of credibility. In this connection the question that comes to mind is whether we should actually go abroad to ascertain what the South African Government ultimately has in mind for South Africa. If one looks at the views that the Embassies in America and elsewhere convey to foreigners, we can rightfully ask whether this Government cannot be charged with political ambiguity; whether it does not have one policy for countries abroad and another for the South African public.

In this regard let us look once more at the example of the Embassy in Washington. I am referring to a letter regularly sent out by that Embassy:

and—

We are asking the hon the Minister whether the South African Government’s policy is “to legalise the ANC”, because that is the message being conveyed to the Americans by Ambassador Koornhof. And we are asking whether that is not, in fact, the policy the hon member for Innesdal put forward in the House of Assembly a few weeks ago when he referred to the ANC. Why does the Government not put its cards on the table as far as the South African public is concerned? Why does the Government not acknowledge that in America it is saying “we want to legalise the ANC”? Why are they concealing that from the voters?

It gives rise to a credibility crisis at two levels, ie in regard to what the Government envisages doing locally and what the Government is telling foreigners. [Interjections.]

I could go on to refer to another relevant example from the Embassy in London. There the following was stated about the National Statutory Council:

Then we have the following sentence:

We are asking the hon the Minister whether it is his policy for his department to tell people abroad that the Whites in South Africa will be reduced to a minority. From this document published by the Embassy in London it is clear that they are actually proud to tell the outside world that the Whites in South Africa will be reduced to a minority. [Interjections.] They do not, however, even refer to a minority group or even to a group as such, simply saying they “will be reduced to a minority”. [Interjections.]

The truth is that this side of the House wants answers to these questions, because we want to go to the voters and ask them whether we are actually interpreting the Government’s proclaimed policy abroad correctly. Let me sum up by asking whether it is really Government policy “to release Nelson Mandela, to legalise the ANC, to abolished all discriminatory rules in South Africa and to reduce the whites to a minority.” [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, at the outset I should also like to pay tribute from our side of the House to the late Mr Wennie du Plessis. He served for many years in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and also as Administrator in South West Africa. I think all of us will agree that he made a very valuable contribution in the development of South Africa’s foreign relations and also in connection with the constitutional development which took place in South West Africa.

I should also like to pay tribute—changes take place in the department which probably go unnoticed—to a few of our senior officials who retired recently or are on the point of retiring.

If one considers the department’s budget and one subtracts programme 3—that is the programme which makes provision for various kinds of transfer payments, project and technical aid to the TBVC-countries—from the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs, one sees that what remains is 0,62% of the Main Budget that goes to the department to enable it to perform its line function. These departments must, with slightly more than a half per cent of this country’s budget, defend South Africa’s case abroad under difficult circumstances. I should therefore like to pay tribute to the men who have served South Africa with so much dedication in the outside world.

Firstly there is Mr Carl Friedrich Georg von Hirschberg. Some of the hon members will know him. He was appointed in the department in 1948—that is quite a long time ago. He served in our embassy in London, our embassy in Vienna, Austria and in our office at the UNO, and from 1972 to 1974 he was our ambassador there. In 1975 he was transferred to Tokyo in Japan as the South African Consul-General and in 1978 he was transferred back to our head office. In 1982 he was promoted to Deputy Director-General, and he retired at the end of April. I convey to him and his wife my sincere thanks for the unstinting service which this gentleman and excellent tactician rendered over the years in the service of his country.

Then there is Mr Jan Francois Wentzel, fondly known as Frans Wentzel. Hon members will know him. He, too, was appointed in 1948 in the Department of Foreign Affairs and served in The Hague, Paris and Stockholm in Sweden. He was the first head of our office in Blantyre when we established a diplomatic mission there, and he subsequently became ambassador there. Subsequently he also served as second-in-charge in London, he acted as ambassador in Berne and during the past few years he was the consul-general in Tokyo until his retirement on 30 April. We also want to thank this colleague of ours and his wife sincerely for their unselfish and valuable service.

Mention should also be made of our present ambassador in Australia, Mr Cornelius Albertus Bastiaanse. He began his career in the public service in 1946, of all places in the Office of the Auditor-General. In 1953 he joined the Department of Foreign Affairs. He served in our missions in Athens, Cairo and Rome. In 1973 he became our ambassador in Lilongwe in Malawi and subsequently, after a further period of service at head office, he was appointed ambassador in Canberra in 1984. He will retire from service at the end of July and we want to thank him and his wife very sincerely for their unselfish and dedicated service, particularly during this last year in Australia. It was a difficult period of service. We wish them everything of the best.

It is also a pleasure for me to welcome the new Deputy Director-General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Glen Robin Ware Babb. He is a younger man—the younger people are rapidly beginning to take over in the Department. He was appointed in the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1967. He served in our embassies in Paris, subsequently at head office, then again in Paris and subsequently in Rome. In 1985 he was appointed as our ambassador in Ottowa, and in 1987 as Deputy Director-General and Chief of the Africa Branch of the department. We welcome him as a man with drive and perseverance.

Hon members will know that we are already being represented overseas by ambassadors chosen from population groups other than the White group in South Africa.

Today it is a privilege for me to say that South Africa’s first woman ambassador has just been appointed. She is Miss Cecilia Johanna Schmidt. In the case of women we do not mention age. She was appointed in 1959 as information officer in the then Department of Information, and she served in our offices in San Francisco from 1966 to 1970. Subsequently she served in our embassy in Brussels as Counsellor from 1973 to 1976, and from 1980 to 1984 in Ottowa. After this she was transferred back to our head office in Pretoria. She has been appointed South Africa’s ambassador in the city of the waltz, the city of Johann Strauss, Vienna, and we wish this outstanding woman everything of the very best. I am proud of her achievements and pleased that her competence could be crowned in this way.

That is not all. We have just appointed our first woman consul-general. She is Miss Annette de Kock Joubert. She joined the department in 1970 and served in our embassies in London and in Canberra and she is now becoming South Africa’s Consul-General in Glasgow. We wish these two women everything of the very best in their difficult task and we thank them for their willingness to serve.

Do they not get a little “job” as well?

I had hoped the hon member would join me in feeling proud that South African women possess the necessary merit to present their country with honour abroad. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Soutpansberg referred to a comment our ambassador saw fit to make in the Security Council in New York. As the hon members who were here know, I dealt with this matter fully in the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President. I do not reproach him for apparently not having been here that day. He definitely had a reason for not being here. However, I want to ask him to read my explanation and if he is still dissatisfied, we can discuss the matter further.

During the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote, the hon member for Sea Point carried on at quite some length about that. To sum it up briefly: During a Security Council meeting in New York we were initially confronted with a comprehensive and compulsory sanctions resolution, which the wild elements in the Security Council watered down in the hope that they would in that way get unanimous Western support for such a resolution, without a veto vote. They would then have made quite considerable progress towards total sanctions. The psychological effect of unanimity would have been a step forward for our enemies towards getting a unanimous resolution passed against us. It would have immediately blown over to Europe and served as a stimulus for what is now happening in the American Congress, to which the hon member for Houghton referred.

Against this background our ambassador emphasised that South Africa had informed the Security Council about circumstances in South Africa over a period of months. It was not a question of his getting their backs up out of the blue. He told them—he is constantly telling them—that this was what we were doing in the sphere of reform. However, they come back time and again, blindly wipe it off the table and stubbornly persist in their condemnation of South Africa. They stubbornly demand a system of one man, one vote in one constitutional structure. They demand the release of political prisoners, as well as a whole number of steps from the South African Government with which it is not possible to comply without destroying this country.

But Koornhof says so!

Against this background he told them that if they wished to continue in this way, after South Africa had stated its case so comprehensively and had set out the reform steps it had taken, then nothing remained for us to do but simply to tell them they must do their damnedest. I do not think anyone can find fault with that, and I cannot understand anyone in South Africa, who knows the circumstances at the UN finding fault with that. Nor do I think that the hon member for Soutpansberg will find fault with this if he reads the entire speech in its context. [Interjections.]

What was important was that our Ambassador’s speech led to a crudely worded resolution being introduced which was vetoed by two countries and which prevented a unanimous resolution being adopted against South Africa.

As regards the signal which my colleague, the hon the Minister of Defence, sent to Moscow according to the hon member for Soutpansberg, I want to say that what the hon the Minister of Defence was discussing that day in the general context of the situation in Angola, was the security situation, the military situation, etc. He did not arbitrarily send a radio signal to Moscow; hon members must scrutinise all the observations he made that day. In that connection he tried to draw a comparison between Angola and Afghanistan on the basis of what the Russians themselves had said about Afghanistan, namely that it was a regional conflict and regional situation from which Moscow would withdraw if a neutral government could come into existence in that country through reconciliation. If they want to be consistent they must apply the same attitude in the case of Angola as well. Is that right, Magnus?

Yes.

Thank you.

Surely it remains foreign affairs. [Interjections.]

The question has been put to me, and I am trying to reply to it as politely as possible.

Yes, but it must at least be convincing!

Order! The hon the Minister is entitled to make his speech with the minimum of interjections. The hon member for Overvaal is not entitled to keep up a running commentary. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

That was the only issue involved here, and I think it was a logical conclusion to make. Even though the Russians, as the hon member for Soutpansberg correctly said, immediately answered no, it could be expected that this would not necessarily be the end of the story. For years they also said no to a withdrawal from Afghanistan. In my opinion it was an appropriate and timeous message, namely that if they wanted to be consistent as far as Afghanistan was concerned, they should also apply that consistency in Angola, in which case hopes for peace could arise; in which case negotiations with the Angolan Government in Luanda, even with the Cubans and Unita and with other interested parties could take place to see whether peace and reconciliation could not be brought about in Angola. If one could bring about the Cuban withdrawal from Angola what one has of course is, as we say, a whole new ball game. Then South West Africa could move towards independence on the basis of the settlement plan that was drawn up years ago.

This is a very important matter to us. Hon members who are conversant with the history of this matter will know what great danger an escalating war in this south western portion of our continent constitutes for us. If that war and conflict were to spill over our borders, if that pattern of a build up of foreign forces in Angola to launch new military offensives intensifies and expands to our neighbouring states, we in Southern Africa are inevitably headed for a large-scale war and conflict, which would make the things we are discussing in this House completely irrelevant. One would then be dealing with conflict throughout the sub-continent. If the major powers cannot be removed from this threatening conflict in time, Southern Africa is facing a military conflict of incalculable consequences.

It is against that background that I have always believed that one should make it possible for the Russians to exert pressure on the Cubans, with honour, and perhaps give them a chance to withdraw honourably from Angola because what one is undoubtedly dealing with here is elements of the power struggle between Russia and the USA.

That is why I once had occasion to say to Dr Crocker himself: “I believe you should be careful not assume too high a profile”, because I think the Russians are probably sensitive about the perception which could be created that talks are only been held with the Americans, or that the Americans figure very prominently in the foreground when Angola is being discussed and there is talk of a Cuban withdrawal. We are dealing here with perceptions which exist about the interests of Russia and America. Neither of the two want to be humiliated. Our interests lie in bringing about stability in our region. If the USA and Russia can come to an agreement in a way which cannot be regarded as humiliating for either of the two, and which at the same time contributes to reducing the tension in Southern Africa, all of us will benefit from this.

If it is really true that the Angolan Government is now sick and tired of war and devastation and if it is really true, as Dr Strauss informed me, that in his conversation with Mr Gorbachev he told him frankly “You have had no gains in Africa”, and Mr Gorbachev did not deny it, then we must see whether the time is not ripe to take new steps to cause the interested parties to reach an agreement. In other words we must solve this problem of a Cuban presence in Angola in this way. We must see whether we cannot get it solved in such a way that Russia and America can withdraw and so that South African can play its peaceful role of economic assistance in Southern Africa, which it has always declared itself prepared to do.

To conclude this subject I therefore want to say that the observations made by the hon the Minister of Defence are directly in line with the trend of thought of this Government concerning the need to obtain peace and stability in Angola. It is based on the logic of the Russian announcement that it would withdraw from Afghanistan.

†The hon member for Houghton, indeed, gave a survey here of the dangerous implications for South Africa of the new legislation which is being considered on Capitol Hill. I do not want to argue with her about this danger to South Africa. I have never endeavoured to minimise this kind of danger. As a matter of fact, some years ago when I warned South Africans that sanctions and punitive measures might be coming one day, I was told that I was an alarmist. I was told that that was just a political gimmick to win elections by frightening South Africans. This is the problem if one has no internal party-political objective but rather a sincere wish to view the threats to this country from a global point of view, and then to warn one’s people not to underestimate those threats. We must try to rid ourselves of this kind of debate where we simply try to play it down by saying that it is a political viewpoint of this or that party. In this important matter all parties in this House, and in Parliament and leaders outside of Parliament, who believe in democracy and stability ought to be united. Therefore, I find no fault with it when she tells us about the dangers involved in the legislation now before the U.S. House of Representatives. The problem is—I think she will allow me to say this to her—that it is totally and completely naïve to think that the withdrawal of certain laws by this Government will stop the momentum of sanctions against South Africa. The hon member really ought to know that.

[Inaudible.]

Very much the same momentum would have built up against this country if the PFP had governed South Africa. There is not the slightest doubt about it. After all, their policy is not very far removed from that of Mr Ian Smith.

Nonsense!

Towards the end, when there was indeed a Black Prime Minister in Rhodesia, did the sanctions stop? [Interjections.] They have such a naïve concept of history.

*The facts are very simple. I do not wanted to quarrel with the hon member about this. I listened to her, but at some time or other in her life she must also listen to me for a change. The fact of the matter is that she knows just as well as I do that no government in South Africa will survive if it complies with the demands that are being made in the Congress of the USA and in the UN. Such a government would be voted out of this House. Apart from that, she must realise that the majority of Whites will not be in favour of her ideas. I am telling her that today. What is more, it would be immoral to accede to those demands.

If we had been morally convinced the NP could still have gone to the country and we could have done our best to elicit the support of our own people and to say that we must do this for the sake of South Africa. [Interjections.] To be able to do that, however, one must at least be personally convinced that one is doing the right thing for one’s country and one’s people. I want to tell the hon member that if she thinks that were I to comply with the demands of people such as Wolpe and Solarz I would be doing the right thing for my country according to my own conscience and convictions, she is making a mistake. We do think it is right or moral, we believe that if those demands were acceded too, South Africa would be plunged into so much misery that certain archbishops would not subsequently be heads of churches here. This is not a joke, but a very serious matter.

I want to refer here to an interesting remark I came across, one which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made when he was still a deputy minister. [Interjections.] I am quoting this not because I am looking for trouble, but because it summarises the essence of our country’s problem. In a debate on compulsory schooling for Black people, which was conducted in this House in 1977, the hon the Leader of the CP said that funds would be required for that, but it is nevertheless significant that he was saying as long ago as 1977 that the day would come when compulsory school attendance would apply to all Black children. One must at one stage or another supply all the funds. He made the promise to the country. However, I do not want to quarrel with him about it today. [Interjections.] On that day in 1977 he was making a statement here, while the hon member for Houghton, who is present here today, kept on interrupting him. He then said to her:

The hon member for Houghton then said: “Sure!” The then Deputy Minister said:

It is true that the Black man measures his position against the position of the Whites. That is the essence of our problem. It is also true that the outside world expects the same standard from us throughout South Africa. The Western world itself, however, is not prepared even to make an attempt, in respect of Africa, to bring African standards into line with European standards. In fact, the gap is growing wider.

That brings me to an important point. I said recently in this House that the morality of the countries attacking us was in fact in issue. Hon members must consider the morality of the onslaught on us. How much respect does the hon member for Houghton have for Canada? Does she really have respect for a country in which the Red Indians are being treated the way they are being treated? She cannot have any respect for Canada, nor can she tell me that what I am saying is not relevant. She and her party must come forward and help us to point out their own deficiencies to those countries. I know she did it on one occasion, but then she must finish what she started—I want to give her a little encouragement today—and tell them that they have no right to pass legislation against us in the UN and their Parliaments as long as the most dubious conditions imaginable are prevailing among the minority groups in the own countries.

The same applies to the USA. I want to say this out loud today, because I think these things must be said in our Parliament. I want to encourage hon members to say it out loud repeatedly, so that it can be heard in Canada and in the USA.

†The unemployment in Canada of Canadian Indians today stands at 90%, but nobody hears about that. Bishop Tutu does not go there to try to do something for his brothers there. Have hon members heard that he has planned a visit to one of the Indian reserves in Canada in order to see conditions for himself?

Of 1,9 billion acres of land in Canada, only 5 million are held by Indians, and there are bitter legal battles about the ownership of this land, because it is so-called Crown Land belonging to the State. Nobody even knows who the owners of the houses are that are built on that land belonging to the State, and apparently there is a rule to the effect that what is built on the land, belongs to the owner of the land. There are a lot of problems in housing and health.

Let us have a look at justice and prisons. There is a very high percentage of Red Indians in Canadian prisons. Some sources put it as high as 70% of the prison population. The Red Indians form a fraction of the total Canadian population, but it seems to me that almost all of them are in jail, or have been in jail. Recently there was a case, the so-called Donald Marshall case, where this man Donald Marshall—this became known in an inquiry subsequent to this case—was sentenced to 11 years in prison for stabbing a person whom he in fact never stabbed. The crime was committed by a completely different person, but he was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment in Canada, and then they are in the vanguard in taking action against South Africa! I am not saying, however, that we should use these facts as excuses for perpetrating similar injustices in this country.

But that is exactly what you are doing!

No, no! I am not referring to it in that sense. All I am saying is—and I asked the hon member this at the beginning of my speech— what respect can I have for the moral motivation of the Canadian Government in going to the UN or even encouraging some United States senators and congressmen to draft legislation punishing South Africa while we are in the midst …

It is not morally right here!

… of dramatic and historic reform?

That is naive!

No, I want to ask the hon member a question. A booklet called The State of Black America, 1988 was published recently by the National Urban League. She knows the organisation. If she has not read it yet, I will make a copy available to the hon lady. I ask her to read it and also to help me to get Bishop Tutu and Rev Boesak to read it properly.

Ah!

No, do not say “ah!”, because …

Yes, I will say “ah!”.

Order! The hon member for Houghton must please restrain herself. The hon the Minister may proceed.

There is a lot of work to be done in the United States to uplift Black Americans. One in three Blacks in the US today, in contrast to 1 in 10 Whites, live below the poverty line. Why cannot they do something about it? That is all I am asking. I am not saying that we do not have inadequacies; I say that we admit them—we have made mistakes, but we are moving forward and we need funds, goodwill and understanding.

Say, for instance, that the leaders of the majority of the peoples of the world, who are actually non-White, should come forward and gather at a conference where they decide that unless the US rectifies these conditions, they are going to impose boycotts and sanctions against the US within a year; unless the US can really improve the position of Black Americans within a year in all the important spheres of life, they will impose sanctions against the US.

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

No, I am sorry, but I do not have the time. She can come and have a discussion with me later.

Oh! Thank you!

The net average worth of Black households today is 12 times less than the net worth of White households. This applies to the United States of America, this holy country that has now to impose sanctions against South Africa to make some Whites millionaires and rob hundreds of thousands of Blacks of their jobs! What morality!

The large-scale efforts to mix schools in the USA are well known. We still remember the painful busing experience. What is the position today? What is happening? The dropping out of so-called Black students on White campuses is on the increase, and the number of Black enrolments are on the decrease. These are the facts. Nobody can deny it. During the past seven or eight years the real income of the lowest fifth of the American population declined by R700 a year per family. During the same period the real family income of the top fifth of the population of the USA increased by R12 000 a year. Hon members can guess who would form the lowest fifth of the population of the USA. Hon members can also guess who would form the top fifth of the population of the USA. It is therefore my contention—I put it to the hon lady and to others who might think like she does—that we should certainly judge the morality of sanctions against this background. We should also ask ourselves what price we will have to pay to avoid sanctions.

I want to put it to the hon lady today that the majority of South Africans, irrespective of the colour of their skin, would not be prepared to pay the price of the chaos which will result from meeting the demands contained in the US Congress legislation. Secondly, I ask what respect we must have for the moral substance of that legislation and for the moral motivation of the legislators of the USA if conditions of misery still prevail amongst the Blacks in the USA, where they have had decades within which to rectify those conditions or disparities, where the Blacks form a very tiny minority of the huge American population, and where they have sufficient funds.

The point I want to make is that I am not propagating sanctions against the USA. If they were to ask me I would say there might be some sociological or historical reasons for this situation. I would not condemn them but rather take into account the progress they have made.

In the case of South Africa they do not care about the facts. As a matter of fact, when at some stage a proposal was made to the US Congress to consult Black South Africans before proceeding with their punitive legislation, that proposal was outvoted. The US Congress was actually telling Black South Africans that their opinion did not count at all. What mattered was the political scene within the USA. They wanted to use that legislation as a political instrument in internal US politics, and as far as they were concerned they wanted to send a signal of morality to the world to show how noble the American Congress was and that it was on the side of Africa.

I should like to talk about Africa tomorrow. I shall deal then with the Africa for whose sake America is punishing South Africa.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Everyone in South Africa, not only those of us in this House, is extremely grateful for what he does in the interests of South Africa—without regarding it as being too much trouble or looking to his own interests. We want to thank him and the officials of his department, under the direction of Mr Niel van Heerden. We thank them for their boundless zeal, enthusiasm and patience. They are doing a tremendous job in the interests of South Africa.

In a certain sense politics is the science of selectivity. All people think selectively. All people hear selectively. All people speak selectively. All people act selectively. If we accept that politics is the science of selectivity, we in this House are in no way an exception to that general rule. That is why, in a debate of this nature, it is very difficult to speak objectively about the problems. One is inclined to think selectively and subjectively, of course as one’s party and one’s leaders do, and then, of course, in the larger political context, in accordance with the way in which we as Whites regard the problems.

If there is one thing of tremendous importance to our country it is our relations with Africa and also with the rest of the world. The truth is, of course, that to get outside one has to walk through one’s own house. There is no way in which one can get outside without walking through one’s own house. That is also true of our international relations. There is no way we can have sound relations with Africa if we cannot address the internal political problems. There is no way in which we can make peace with the international world, as far as peace is possible, unless we walk through our own house.

It is also true that in the problematic situation in which history has placed us, we as White children of Black Africa have a tremendous responsibility with regard to our relations to Black Africa. [Interjections.] Most important of all is the fact that we have a tremendous responsibility towards the “Black-White” problem within South Africa, because there is no way in which we can have sound relations with Africa and with the world if our unique solutions to the problems in South Africa are not accepted by the majority of reasonable Black people in South Africa. In a certain sense one can say that the White children of Black Africa would be totally doomed in the annals of history if we did not manage to achieve a workable constitutional and overall solution to the problems in Southern Africa.

That is precisely what the government is doing. One can argue about how this is being done, about the speed at which it is being done and about anything else, but there is one thing we cannot argue about, and that is that if we cannot fundamentally address these basic problems and find a solution acceptable to the majority of reasonable Black people in South Africa, our future international relations will be marked by tremendous problems and tensions.

Our road to Africa and to the world at large is therefore inextricably linked to our domestic policy, and we can view internal solutions for South Africa from many angles, but the allprevailing question is ultimately not what we as the Government think is good for the Black people in South Africa, nor is the all-prevailing question what the Official Opposition and other White political parties say. The dominant question in this regard is what the majority of reasonable Black people in South Africa feel and experience the situation to be. This is the most important question with which we are faced in our relations with the rest of Africa and the rest of the world: What are the feelings of the majority of Black people in South Africa?

It is impossible to satisfy everyone. There are radicals whom one will never satisfy. For all times South Africa, like other countries of the world, will probably be confronted with forms of terrorism and violence, and those forms of terrorism and violence one has to deal with in violent terms; there is no other way to do so. One has to do so in the interest of one’s country.

The important step the Government is taking— on this occasion I want to advocate that the Government hasten its efforts—is to address the constitutional and other problems involved in Black-White relations in South Africa more dramatically and dynamically than has already been done.

The hon the State President’s announcement in the discussion of his Vote gives one hope. The truth is that a politician is someone who can sell both myths and realities to the electorate, but a statesman is someone who has to sell people the realities of the country, even when the people do not want to buy them.

We are telling the Government and our leaders that we are squarely behind them in the reform campaigns they are tackling in South Africa, because all of us in this House know that if we cannot basically succeed in optimally effecting reform, we shall be faced by increasing problems in the international world.

It is also true that one’s enemy today can be one’s friend tomorrow. It is equally true that one’s friend today can be one’s enemy tomorrow. We in South Africa have a tremendous number of enemies in the world, but I think that we can only reach our friends in the outside world by way of our domestic policy, by way of what we do locally. When important Black people, Coloureds and Asians stand up in greater numbers than they are doing today and openly say that they stand by this country, that they stand by South Africa and the Government, not because they endorse everything the Government is doing, but because they feel that the essence of reform is important to them, we shall have been successful. Until such time as an increasing number of Black people in South Africa are convinced in their heart of hearts that reform is a fundamental issue, that is in their interests and that it is for their own good, we must accept that we are going to have major problems.

We are a small country with a great future. Unfortunately history—and this applies to foreign policy too—has often turned South Africa’s own political school concerts into international dramas. We need only look around us. The dogs of apartheid are barking in every corner of the world, with or without legislation, but the mongrel, South Africa, gets the thrashing. It is true, is it not, that every political school concert in South Africa, every minor conflict situation has developed into an international drama over the years, and that is something which places a tremendous responsibility on the shoulders of everyone in this House.

Anything that vexes Black people in South Africa—we simply have to accept this as a fact— bedevils our relations with Black Africa on the one hand and our relations with the world on the other. The mistake that many of us make is to want to attribute all the problems in South Africa to Soviet influence.

There are also certain perceptions in South Africa, many of them totally unfounded, which we have to work on. For me it is important to examine these perceptions. Our image in Africa is not always what one would like it to be. A great deal of that has to do with perceptions dating from the colonial era, the time of exploitation, exclusion and discrimination. We in South Africa, under the direction of this Government, are moving away completely from the perception that there is exploitation and discrimination in our country. That is why we are abolishing discrimination.

One of the important aspects is that we should properly identify ourselves with Africa. To be able to do this we have to shake off certain of these aspects which create negative perceptions about South Africa. They get in the way of our acceptance by Africa. Once such aspect is that Black people do not as yet have a say in South Africa. When we come to the culmination of the Government’s constitutional policy, we shall be able to shake off that negative perception.

Another negative perception in Africa is that we are a country and a Government which Black people in Africa have for centuries, throughout our history, perceived as been paternalistic. We—and this applies to each of us as individuals—must rid ourselves of the perception that we want to tell other states and other people what is good for them, what has to be done and how it has to be done, because that is an erroneous perception.

Black people also have the perception—it is wrong—that they cannot participate in the political process in South Africa, and perhaps I am referring here specifically to the so-called leftwing radical organisations. We must get rid of that perception. The only people in South Africa who cannot participate in the constitutional process are those who want to seize power in this country by violent means. No Government in the world, if it has all its wits about it, would permit a body, group or political party, whatever its historic roots may be, to take over the government of the day by violent means.

There is another perception in Africa to which we must also give attention. The whole of Africa, in spite of its ethnic divisions, is strongly opposed to absolutistic ethnic systems. We shall have to examine a slightly greater degree of flexibility in the concepts of ethnicity and group ties in South Africa. I personally believe—and I am not saying that we should do this, not at all—that if we were to abolish all Acts in South Africa tomorrow, ethnicity and group ties, in the various forms in which we experience them today, would still continue to exist in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on what was said by the hon member for Innesdal. In the course of my speech I shall try to link up once more with what he said.

At the very outset permit me to wish our hon Minister everything of the best with the difficult negotiating process that lies ahead for him, because we know that it is in Southern Africa’s interests for these negotiations to succeed, and we trust he will be patient and ultimately achieve success.

The hon member for Umlazi referred to the two pillars on which the Department of Foreign Affairs rests, ie development aid and communications and image-building. I should like to confine myself to the second pillar.

Foreign missions work day and night to combat sanctions and boycotts against South Africa and present an accurate picture of South Africa abroad. I should like to give hon members the amounts voted for this purpose in the 1987-88 budget. There is R13,9 million for communications programmes at foreign missions, R6,7 million for professional services, R1,06 million for audio-visual services, R13,8 million for publications, R4,4 million for the guest programme and R21,7 million for Radio RSA.

At 32 missions throughout the world films and video’s were shown to more than a million people. Exhibitions were held world-wide. Conferences and seminars were held. The department played host to 1 029 influential foreign visitors to South Africa.

For 210 hours per week Radio RSA transmits programmes which are heard in the United Kingdom, Africa, the Middle East, the United States of America and South America. Each day there are 320 news bulletins in 20 languages. Weekly programmes are beamed to 150 radio stations. Because Africa is so important, programmes are transmitted for 149 hours per week in eight African languages. This represents an increase of 32% on the previous year’s transmission time. I really think that the Department of Foreign Affairs’ programme is an impressive one which simply goes unnoticed.

Image-building is an important function. It is one of the many daily functions of the department. It is an extremely difficult task which is further complicated by the complex composition of South African society. Then there are also the unreasonable and unacceptable demands made upon South Africa by the international community.

The TBVC countries, for example, receive no recognition, even after decades of independence in which they have proved that they are countries which are serious about making a success of things. In contrast Britain saw fit to declare three former protectorates, Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana, independent, and they gained recognition throughout the world. It is difficult to accept these double standards and this discrimination against South Africa. Why is it all to the good if Britain does it, but South Africa is not permitted to do so?

It is therefore encouraging that the British MP, Mr Norman Tebbit, condemned the stinking hypocrisy of South Africa’s critics when he recently addressed the South Africa Club in London. This stinking hypocrisy also applies to the self-governing states. These foreign powers refuse to accept that the Black peoples also have a right to self-determination, a right which they exercised when they obtained independence. They refuse to accept that they also have their own national pride and seek recognition as full-fledged partners.

From South Africa the international community—our hon Minister referred to this—expects a system of one man, one vote in a unitary state. That means abdication. Surrender! It means wretchedness and poverty for everyone here in South Africa. That is why we resolutely reject that. That is why, in regard to these unreasonable demands and the pressure exerted on South Africa, South Africa’s ambassador at the UN was forced to say: “Do your damnedest!” I really do want to express the hope that the general public will support the Government in this, also when further sanctions materialise.

I really do find it regrettable that the hon member for Soutpansberg had to question this. One really does hope that in the interests of South Africa the Official Opposition will not join South Africa’s enemies in making such judgments. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense!

The hon member for Soutpansberg says I am talking nonsense. He criticised the hon the Minister, however, because countries abroad were told to do their damnedest if those were the demands they were imposing on South Africa. I just feel that I want to make a friendly request to hon members of the CP to be careful that it is not subsequently said of them that their view is that their enemy’s enemy is their friend. [Interjections.] That would be a bad day indeed for South Africa. Let us rather agree and suffer the hardships together, but all the while retaining our self-respect and national pride.

South Africa’s image must ceaselessly be enhanced. I think the Official Opposition really has a major role to play in this. This message is conveyed throughout the world by our missions, and we must support them in those endeavours. Our hon Minister is striving to achieve peace. He seeks peace in a world ravaged by violence, terrorism, boycotts and mistrust on a large scale. It is a world in which lies edge out the truth and in which even God and His Commandments no longer have any place. It is a world in which self-interest and double standards dictate the rules of the game.

It is very interesting that in his maiden speech the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke advocated a full-fledged information department. That is proof of the fact that that hon member greatly values the enhancement of South Africa’s image. In his maiden speech the hon member for Randfontein also made the very interesting statement about South Africa’s path into the outside world, the UN and normal international relations running through Africa, and that if Africa accepted us, the rest of the world would be only too eager to follow suit. That is a very true statement.

The question that now arises, however, is whether that is also the CP’s standpoint. [Interjections.] That is what we should like to know. If it is also the CP’s standpoint, we have really made some progress. That is specifically why the hon the Minister is fighting for peace. He, his Deputy Minister and his department seek peace and better relations with Africa. They are striving to live in peace with our neighbours.

I want to associate myself with the hon member for Innesdal and say that if we agree that the path runs through Africa, we must ask ourselves how we get to Africa, where the key to Africa lies. The hon members for Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein will probably agree with me that the key lies inside South Africa. We must find peace on the domestic front. Only when we have been able to achieve a peaceful solution locally—not abdication, but a peaceful solution—can we find the key to Africa. [Interjections.] This is our country. We are a part of Africa—surely we cannot get away from that. Our salvation and that of our children he here. We have no other country, nowhere else to go.

This difficult road can only be travelled successfully if we are firm in the action we take. Here our security forces play a major role, as has again been proved in Angola. For that reason we want to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best in this gigantic task. Our hon Minister is forging a path into Africa, into the hearts of people. [Time expired].

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Minister thinks that what I had to say was naive, I wish to tell him that I think what he had to say was pathetic—absolutely pathetic! Every example that he used was totally irrelevant to the South African situation. Who cares about the Red Indians in Canada? Who cares about what is happening in other countries? We are interested in what is happening in South Africa. The point I was trying to make was that the issues in South Africa were what should be engaging the hon the Minister’s attention. What the hon member for Innesdal has said is absolutely right.

The key to South Africa’s foreign relations lies in South Africa’s internal policy. There is no doubt about it. A major issue is the denial of rights on the basis of skin colour—the fact that race discrimination in South Africa is entrenched on our Statute Book. It is true there is discrimination elsewhere, it is true there is denial of basic rights in other countries, but in South Africa basic rights are denied on the basis of skin colour and that denial is entrenched on the Statute Book. That is the first issue.

The second issue is the lack of due process in South Africa. The hon the Minister knows perfectly well that this is a major issue overseas, namely the fact that South Africa, which claims to have Western civilized standards, locks up people without trial, detains people without trial. That does not happen to the Red Indians in Canada, it does not even happen to the Aborigines in Australia, who are also having a bad time.

The next issue is the enormous difference between the standard of living of White South Africans and that of Black South Africans. By and large it is true that American Blacks have a higher rate of unemployment, that they have a lower standard of living than white Americans, but there is nothing on the Statute Book that in any way entrenches this disparity. This disparity is the result of a lack of opportunity, a lack of education, but there are no laws that can stop them from rising on the economic ladder.

The next issue is the inherent cruelty in the apartheid system. The hon the Minister does not seem to understand that. What I did, when I spoke to him, was to ask him, not, as I say, to transfer power to the Black majority but to remove those issues which were fuelling the anti-sanctions campaign in South Africa. I have just come back from America and I know perfectly well that these issues are in the newspapers over and over again. I ask the hon the Minister whether he really believes that it would reduce South Africa to chaos if, for instance, the Moutse affair was allowed to die if the Government did not now contemplate reversing the decision of the Appeal Court and incorporating Moutse into KwaNdebele. That is an issue in the United States, and the hon the Minister knows it. Does he really think that any of the other things I have suggested would reduce South Africa to chaos? Granting clemency to the Sharpeville Six would be an enormous plus factor in South Africa’s favour.

Why do you call them the Sharpeville Six?

Because that is how they are known.

They are the Dhlamini murderers.

Just as you are known as the stupid member for Turffontein. [Interjections.]

Why does the Government persist in threatening the Press in South Africa with closure?

Mr Speaker, is the hon member for Houghton allowed to call the hon member for Turffontein “the stupid member for Turffontein”?

The stupid hon member for Turffontein. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw her reference to the hon member for Turffontein as being a stupid member.

Mr Speaker, should I withdraw the words “the stupid member for Turffontein” or “the stupid hon member for Turffontein”?

Order! The hon member must withdraw her reference to the hon member for Turffontein as being the stupid member for Turffontein. That must be withdrawn.

Well, that is how he is known, Sir.

Order! The hon member must not argue with the Chair. The hon member must withdraw that reference unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir, but my opinion does not change.

Does the hon the Minister not realise that his actions would take the steam out of the campaign? It would at least allow the anti-sanctions lobby in America, where these bills are in the process of going through, some leeway. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, if I understood the hon member for Houghton correctly, she does not really have a problem with discrimination as such. She referred to other countries and said there was also discrimination there but that we should not refer to those countries. So she apparently does not have anything against discrimination. [Interjections.] She only has something against discrimination if it appears on the Statute Book. [Interjections.] It should not be statutory—that is actually what the hon member for Houghton said in this debate.

I think we should take note of this viewpoint of the hon member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

*I do not want to react any further to the hon member for Houghton’s speech because there is another subject which I should like to address. It is that the threat of sanctions against South Africa has been in the air for many decades, but America gave a new thrust to economic sanctions by the adoption of sanctions legislation on 15 August 1986 by the American Senate. Of course, there were bodies which were delighted at the adoption of that resolution, which was incorporated in legislation. [Interjections.]

One of the hon members said that the PFP was also delighted at this. I do not want to go so far as to say that, but I do think there are elements in the PFP which would not have had any objections to that legislation.

Fortunately voices were also raised against the institution of sanctions, even from quarters from which a person would never have expected this. Black leaders too, within and outside South Africa, spoke out against the adoption of economic sanctions against our country.

We must also say that these leaders who came forward within and outside South Africa to have their votes recorded against sanctions were not always leaders who had been lauded by the overseas Press, radio and television for their leadership qualities. They are not known as the so-called “celebrity leaders” who have been declared leaders by the foreign media. They have not been fabricated as leaders in South Africa by the foreign media. They are real, authentic leaders who represent millions of people. I shall come back to this in a moment.

The hon member for Losberg, who is not in the House now, referred to the late Martin Luther King in his speech. The remarkable aspect is what his wife, Mrs Coretta Scott King, of America, said about sanctions when she was in South Africa and I quote her:

Even this so-called leftist leader’s wife therefore says that sanctions are immoral in essence, and that one should not use immoral means to achieve a moral goal.

Many of these antisanction voices were heard and ultimately notice was taken of them. Various countries and leaders have already acknowledged that economic sanctions simply did not have the desired effect. There is an abundance of evidence available to prove this. We need only compare today’s Press in which Mr George Schultz of the USA’s statement of the past weekend appears. He said that the administration in the USA was opposed to economic sanctions against South Africa. He even issued a warning that America could isolate itself by means of sanctions. He also mentioned that Pres Reagan had promised to veto the legislation which was going to be adopted by Congress.

I think hon members would be interested in the most recent and certainly the most surprising antisanctions statement made by Botswana’s representative at the United Nations during the debate on South Africa in the Security Council. Ambassador Legwaila said:

Nevertheless we are facing the possibility of further sanctions actions against the RSA by America and even by the European Community.

In the case of the EEC in particular the reasons may perhaps be traced to the following actions in the RSA: The restrictions imposed on the 17 organisations in the RSA, some of which are furnished with assistance by the EEC as part of their policy of positive measures in respect of the victims of apartheid—as seen by them; the envisaged legislation on foreign financing, by means of which the EEC’s financial aid programme to certain organisations within the country could be thwarted, and the execution of the Dlamini Six, which could perhaps be the catalysts by means of which further sanctions measures could be instituted against the RSA.

Unlike the case of America, it is doubtful whether further economic sanctions will be considered by the EEC countries at present. They are perhaps casting about for new measures on another level and we shall have to take a close look at the possible consequences of further sanctions by the EEC countries in respect of our diplomatic representation overseas. The introduction of visa obligations and the termination of air links are only a few examples. Although the EEC has not yet taken concrete steps in this regard, it will be more difficult for countries like West Germany and the UK to oppose such measures than was the case with other economic sanctions measures, such as those in respect of coal.

We dare not adopt a passive stance about this. It is important that we take countermeasures because it is not to the advantage of South Africa to break all ties completely or to have them broken completely with all power blocs, especially in the Western world. In my opinion a climate must be created within South Africa—I am associating myself with the hon member for Innesdal—in the social, economic and political spheres by means of which it will again be possible for South Africa to take its place among other states in every field in which there is international movement. Although our involvement with other power blocs in the West and in the East is important, we must start here in South Africa. Structures for co-operation in South Africa must be extended to new structures in Southern Africa. Indications are that new doors to the rest of Africa are opening to us. I think we should concentrate on that and utilise possibilities because, as has already been said in this debate, we are in and of Africa.

South Africa was recognised as an independent state in Africa in the Lusaka Manifesto as early as April 1969 and this has been repeated on various occasions. Africa has said that South Africa is part of Africa. They might have problems with the Government but the fact of the existence of this country is accepted without question.

I hope and trust that it will be possible to have South Africa become part of the great power bloc in Africa so that we may move from there to participation in other power blocs in the rest of the world. I believe that, once we are established in Southern Africa and in Africa, our country will be viewed differently worldwide. By means of more contact in both directions, it will be possible to put events in South Africa in their correct perspective.

Mr Speaker, I take great pleasure in following the hon member Dr Golden. I listened carefully to his explanation of the futility of sanctions.

†I must say that one of the best summaries of sanctions and the futility thereof that I recently read, appeared in a recent issue of the journal Defence and Diplomacy and I would like to quote a few examples of what was said here:

*It then elaborates on this—

It continues in this way. The point I want to make, however, and I found this very interesting, is the following:

It then goes on and I want to quote only three examples which are mentioned:

Sir, Soviet Russia exports to America while the same products are obtainable in South Africa. Those are the results or the possible results of sanctions. In last year’s debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote, discussion was dominated by the exchange agreement in which Maj Wynand du Toit was involved. Quite a number of African and other countries were involved in that agreement. On that occasion, almost a year ago, the cautious hope was expressed that it might be the prelude to better relations in Southern Africa and I think it would be beneficial if one now examined, a year later, how those lessons were applied in practice and what we learnt from them. What occurred there was a triumph for politics of negotiation; we all said this but the lesson we learnt from it was that to a great extent the success of politics of negotiation went hand in hand with power.

We have always been in favour of co-operation rather than confrontation but the world does not talk to weaklings. That is why the security of South Africa and at the same time the building of bridges to the outside world are indivisibly connected. We want peace, stability and order in South Africa and we want to live in peace with our neighbours. We have affirmed this repeatedly but we have also told our neighbours and others in Africa politely that under no circumstances do we intend to be anybody’s punchbag. On the one hand there must be the will to negotiate but on the other the necessary respect too, and this can only be achieved when a person acts from a position of strength.

There was a second lesson to be learnt from those events of a year ago, namely the destabilising consequence for the entire region. It has repeatedly been said that South Africa does not want to cause destabilisation and the perpetual claim by some African countries that we are doing this is without exception merely a smoke-screen for their own inability to bring about peace and order. No, Sir, South Africa specifically wants to bring about stabilisation because the only real hope for this area lies in the stabilisation of the subcontinent. South Africa will have to learn, and fortunately there are positive signs that it is learning that political rhetoric will have to be replaced by more practical co-operation agreements, and I should like to highlight a few of these.

We are frequently accused of everything which goes wrong in Southern Africa. A path is often beaten to my door by diplomats who come to object about events which are imputed to South Africa through sheer inference. It is a great pity that South Africa does not receive more recognition for positive things it has already brought about in the region but especially in South Africa itself.

It is no use crying over spilt milk but if the colonial powers which occupied and exploited the Africa about us for 300, 400 and 500 years, had done their duty by developing those countries and creating a sound infrastructure instead, and had prepared the people of those countries systematically for their independence, the picture in South Africa would have been quite different today.

No, Sir, South Africa does not want to cause destabilisation. Circumstances and history are the principle causes of the misery and immeasurable problems of this subcontinent.

A third lesson is contained in the events of 7 September 1987. That lesson is proved increasingly true every day. It is that we cannot hope to keep South Africa reasonably prosperous while our neighbours are sunk in misery. We should like to see our neighbouring countries in good order; we want to see them happy, prosperous and stable. We want to live in peace with them. We want to trade with them, as is actually already happening in the case of almost all of them on a modest scale. If we can help them to help themselves, we shall do it at any price and in our own interests. As long as the people of Mozambique are dying of hunger and poverty, so long will it undoubtedly be our problem too. As long as refugees from that country pour into the Republic of South Africa in their hundreds of thousands—barefoot through the wilderness—so long will we share their problems. While no employment opportunities, no accommodation, no adequate infrastructure exist in our own independent and self-governing areas, we shall not be able to sleep in peace at night.

There is a fourth lesson to be learnt from the events of 7 September 1987. It is that South Africa, and especially Southern Africa, will ultimately have to solve their own problems. If this was true of that case on 7 September last year, that lesson becomes more relevant daily. The Americans, the Russians and countries of the European Community would all like to claim credit for solutions to the problems in this subcontinent. The fact is, however, that unfortunately they look for instant solutions in most cases and that the problems of our part of the world unfortunately cannot be solved overnight. The problems of Mozambique will only be solved if Renamo and Frelimo gather round a conference table. Angola is starting to realise that its salvation lies within itself, and, if recent discussions bring home this truth, they will have gone a long way on the path to peace in that area.

Over the past year a further lesson has emerged with great clarity. It is that the best way to prevent a neighbouring state from offering a springboard to ANC terrorists against the Republic of South Africa is to have such good relations with such countries that they simply will not permit it. They do not permit this in their own interests because they do not want to jeopardise the benefits they derive from their good relations with South Africa.

These five lessons which we learnt last year and which, I am convinced, we have applied with great magnanimity this year have an enormous potential if Southern Africa can and wishes to utilise the benefits implicit in them. Reality has proved that South Africa is becoming a regional power without which Africa simply cannot manage. An increasing number of countries is beginning to realise this and also starting to put out feelers. The hon the State President referred to this in the discussion of his Vote two weeks ago. I want to mention this again. Over the past months senior Ministers from at least five countries have visited the Republic of South Africa— some openly, like those from Mozambique and Malawi; others again on a highly confidential basis. I am not even mentioning the numerous visits from deputations from the TBVC and BLS countries which take place on a regular basis. An obvious need for closer relations emerges from all these visits, a realisation that we are all of Africa, that, although there are ideological differences, there is much to be gained from co-operation and economic interdependence.

I referred earlier to the necessity that we should try for heavens’ sake to replace the rhetoric in Southern African politics with real, practical, mutual co-operation agreements.

The final protocols in respect of the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme were signed here in Cape Town a month ago. Meanwhile they have established themselves in our trade mission and we have established ourselves in theirs. I am convinced that relations between us and this enclave neighbour in our midst can only improve in future. The automatic result of this is that the security position will improve.

Serious attention is being paid in Botswana to a large soda ash project and I am convinced that if it can be implemented in practice, it will have the same effect there too; that is to say, if some great powers do not put a spanner in the works because it is not in their interests.

Practical projects in Mozambique—the hon member for Umlazi referred to them—have the potential to bring about an enormous difference in relations between that country and us. The Cahora Bassa Project is probably one of the greatest engineering wonders of our time, but at the same time probably the greatest white elephant in Africa. With a total involvement of R2,5 billion by the Portuguese, a great potential income for Mozambique and an additional 8% of electric power for South Africa at reasonable tariffs, this project not only has the potential of strengthening the economic interdependence of these countries but also has far-reaching political implications. Much progress was made toward an agreement a month or two ago during discussions in Mozambique and it is hoped that further discussions in this regard will take place in Lisbon next month.

At present the RSA is involved in sensitive discussions on both the west coast and the east coast of Africa which, if they can be realised, can strike a great blow for peace in Southern Africa.

Through its Department of Foreign Affairs, South Africa is represented by trade missions in a considerable number of countries in Africa today and the contact which is effected in this way is of incalculable value to the RSA and the countries concerned.

The truth of the matter is that we can never compete with the large countries of the world when it comes to contributions for development in those countries, but even our small contribution has an advantage which is far greater than that of those countries. We are of Africa and are acquainted with conditions. The people have confidence in our knowledge and experience. Today South Africans are involved in scores of countries in the development of agriculture, infrastructure, health services, tourism and other projects.

During a recent visit to one of these countries, where we assist in a modest way but where that assistance is received with great gratitude, I had a few interesting discussions with the president of that country. He told me how grateful they were for the assistance they were receiving. I thought that one should perhaps make a request of him and I asked him whether, in the light of this, he would not speak up on behalf of South Africa in international circles now and then, and, if there were a vote on sanctions or whatever, he would not vote against them for a change. I found his reaction very interesting. He said to me: “How would that help? My task is quite different from your view of it. My task is to whisper in the lobbies.” He added: “I go to those people who are so critical of you and I say they can be critical if they like but they should look at me to see what that country is doing for my country and how it is helping my people with its knowledge and experience.”

Surely that is our task. Surely it is what we are called to do here in Southern Africa and it is precisely in that manner that we can develop the image and hew open the way ahead which will lead us back to international recognition. In that regard I should very much like to associate myself with the hon members for Innesdal and Walvis Bay.

Over the past year I have seen too many countries in Africa where minimum norms and standards apply throughout. This may never be permitted in South Africa. That is why it is so absolutely necessary to associate myself with what these hon members said, namely that the changes on which we are working in South Africa will be pursued at all costs and with the greatest possible speed so that we shall retain those norms and standards under all circumstances.

It is also one of the tasks of the Department of Foreign Affairs to convey that image—that image of equity and justice—but also an image of minimum standards which will have to be maintained in this country.

It is the simple truth that good news is seldom news to world media. Bad news and sensation are the things which make banner headlines. It is an enormous task for this department, on a relatively small budget, as the hon the Minister said previously, to convey the image of South Africa under those difficult circumstances and publish the numerous good things which are happening here.

The hon member for Walvis Bay referred specifically to our image-building programme. The poor, negative image of South Africa overseas actually poses a direct threat to the continued existence of the country. On the one hand it has a demoralising effect within the country on moderate elements which support reform and on the other hand it serves to encourage revolutionary elements which want to see the Government weakened and isolated. Overseas it creates the erroneous perception that nothing constructive happens in South Africa and that the country is on the brink of horrific catastrophe.

With a view to this, the department has launched very specific initiatives since the beginning of 1987 to improve this image overseas. The department is trying, systematically and according to a policy of communication and a strategy, to pay intensive attention to the problem and to conduct this entire effort scientifically. I can tell hon members for instance how many copies of magazines have been distributed throughout the world over the past year—over 10 million.

I can tell hon members about the guest programme. I am convinced that there is no better way to convey the reality of South Africa—its complexity, its disposition towards reform and efforts to create a fair and just dispensation. They come to South Africa in their hundreds, often they are extremely critical, often they are positive and often they are objective. Not once, however, have I had a guest in my office who, after half an hour or an hour has not left with a more positive image of South Africa.

In South Africa we have the goods to sell and, if we could publish the reform efforts in this country with greater unanimity and unity, it would be so much easier to convey that image. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is an exceptional privilege to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister. I should like to thank him sincerely on behalf of this side of the House, and congratulate him on the way in which he performs his great task. I am constantly amazed at the great volume of knowledge this hon Deputy Minister has accumulated in a short period, particularly when it comes to Africa, with which he has been charged.

If one acquaints oneself on a daily basis with what is stated in the newspapers, or what is broadcast on radio and television, it is an exception if there is no report about some or other onslaught on South Africa. The Eastern bloc countries’ onslaughts are indirect and very subtle, but those of the West are open and direct and often blatant.

Not only are we threatened by terrorism in its vilest form, but there is a constant stream of threats about sanctions and boycotts, as we have heard in this debate this afternoon.

I find it a great political shock that all the people of South Africa, but more specifically the Whites of South Africa, still afford themselves the luxury in these dangerous circumstances of moving away from one another in splinter groups, instead of standing firm as good and loyal citizens to seek the best solution to our country’s problems. Naturally people have the right to differ with one another, but to denigrate and cast suspicion on one another for the sake of political gain is to weaken our basis of negotiation and our resistance at the expense of South Africa.

The hon the Minister, his hon deputy and the department are constantly accused of not taking strong enough action. There is a great deal of criticism about this department’s information campaign abroad …

Order! In the case of this hon member, hon members must lower their voices. His voice does not carry very well and it is difficult to hear the hon member. The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Deputy Minister has informed us about their campaigns abroad. This department is involved in huge campaigns, which have scientific grounds and which cost millions of rands. If it is possible to do something, it is done. I want to ask hon members today, however, what else South Africa can do to satisfy foreign countries. They are obsessed with the idea that we are a pro-Nazi group of Whites who want to exploit people of colour. The only thing that will satisfy them, as we have heard, is a system of one man, one vote and Black majority rule. They want a one party state, with the ANC in control.

I say that this is an illusion that they can forget about. Foreign countries’ excessive demands, for example that Mr Nelson Mandela should be released, can delay the onslaught by a few weeks or even a few months, but will definitely not end it.

It is the policy of the NP Government that we must not impoverish people. We do not even want to see our neighbouring countries becoming impoverished. More than 60% of South Africa’s trade is dependent on its foreign trade. We cannot isolate ourselves. We must do everything in our power to keep every trade channel open by means of diplomatic action or other business planning.

As a farmer and producer of export products, I get very nervous when I hear how our marketing boards have to absorb shocks overseas to prevent orders for our products from being cancelled. If, for example, our export enterprises for deciduous fruit have a large consignment of perishable fruit overseas that has to be sold, and there are reports on TV and on newspapers’ front pages that Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche has led an armed procession with Nazi overtones to the Union Buildings, there is a spate of calls from chain stores and other institutions that want to cancel their orders for South African fruit.

Who suffers because of this? It is not the AWB or the CP—no, it is the farmers who after incurring great expense and after a lot of hard work have to accept a reduced price for their product, simply to get rid of it. [Interjections.] If Archbishop Tutu and Rev Boesak lead a procession to the Parliamentary building and television viewers abroad see this procession led by the priests, and the next thing they see is a water cannon, this has exactly the same negative effect.

I wonder if the general public who so easily become involved with the AWB’s revolver culture, or the people who are so sympathetic towards “Liberation Theology” realise what this costs our country in terms of rands and cents.

I wonder what our farmers in particular, English as well as Afrikaans-speaking farmers, who collaborate with these two organisations to such an extent, would say if they had to hear suddenly one morning that the overseas trade unions were refusing to offload our wool and mohair because of such irresponsible action by our own people.

I want to express great respect and appreciation to this hon Minister, his hon Deputy Minister as well as the staff in his department, but at the same time I want to make a serious appeal to all South Africans to stand firm against our enemies, both our foreign enemies and those at home, and not to permit our purses to be emptied because of petty politicking. It is so easy to sit on a pavilion, criticising what is going on in the scrum, but when one is in the scrum oneself, one may see things differently.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Queenstown spoke to us about the influence of internal events and actions in respect of the export trade, mainly with reference to agriculture. I am in full agreement with the hon member; it is an honour to speak after him.

This has become a cliche, but I want to say it again. The hon member for Walvis Bay referred to this as well. South Africa’s road to the world runs through Africa. The RSA’s position in the world therefore depends on South Africa’s relationship with Africa, and that in turn depends on South Africa’s internal socio-political dispensation. My last statement in this connection is that the acceptance of the RSA as a true African country can never be achieved while the RSA speaks for Whites only through Whites. I shall come back to this later.

With regard to matters closer to the home front, I want to say that I had the honour of leading a study group consisting of members of Parliament from all three Houses, representing most of the parties, to the Transkei and the Ciskei from 1 to 6 November last year. All of us in that touring group were very impressed by the diligence, the high quality of the work and the enthusiasm of the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs there. We were also very impressed by the quality of work and enthusiasm of the people, the officials and the leaders of those countries. This was in glaring contrast to what the CP wrote in their publication, Patriot, of 19 February. This article referred to the independent Black states of South Africa as caricatures of the Verwoerd ideal. These countries are anything but caricatures, however. I say we were impressed by what we saw there, and it is in this respectt that the CP’s policy will fail. Our visit was very beneficial, and it promoted good relations between those countries and the RSA. I want to make a strong recommendation that there be more tours of this kind. Incidentally, that was also the impression and the opinion of those leaders and those people, viz that we could learn a great deal from one another and that this kind of tour was essential.

With regard to the aspect of foreign affairs, I was struck by the strong and close bond, the interdependence, that exists between these so-called TBVC countries and South Africa. We are all developing countries, and the bond is very close and strong. I also want to say that the bond and the relationship between South Africa and the TBVC countries differs very clearly from the relations South Africa has with countries abroad, for example. In the first case a distinctiveness comes into play, and this is reflected very clearly in five aspects.

The first of these is the intense involvement of South Africa in development projects in the sphere of agriculture and agricultural science, the training of people and the large numbers of seconded people from South Africa who are involved in these projects. The second aspect is also very important. Distinctiveness is emphasised in that our staff in embassies actually conduct domestic politics there; that is how intertwined South Africa is with those countries. In other words, those people are our equals. One cannot talk about caricatures, and that is where I say the CP will fail.

I sometimes become very alarmed when we, as the representatives of five million Whites—one can call it the White nation if one wants to—have discussions in this House and literally fight elections outside on something as ridiculous as whether partition is the solution for South Africa, and for this large group of countries with which we are so closely linked. One cannot partition those people—I shall come back to this later— because they are one and to a great extent they form a unit. It worries me when we waste time on this, whereas we should be giving time and attention to the reality of the matter.

The third aspect is that this distinctiveness is emphasised in that everyone at the embassy has an uninterrupted training function; unlike what was the case abroad, for example. After all, we are dealing with developing countries here.

The fourth aspect is that the South African embassy has an employment creation campaign to curb unemployment. This is extremely important to South Africa. We see what is happening in Mozambique. We see what is happening there because of starvation and extensive unemployment. That is why the people flocked over the borders to us despite boundaries and even literally despite electrified barbed wire. Yet the CP talks about ridiculous matters such as influx control legislation. Laws do not work under conditions of this kind, when things are so bleak. That is why the task our people are doing there is extremely important.

In the fifth place the situation of our embassies, and therefore also the daily lives of the staff, is distinguished by the problems with regard to the incorporation of land. I do not want to go into detail on that, because it is a subject in its own right.

It is true that when one talks about Africa in the broad context, South Africa does not have embassies in the majority of African states. That does not mean that no contact exists between us and those states, however.

†In the Africa Institute of South Africa’s Bulletin, volume 28, No 1 of 1988, it is stated, and I quote:

I presume it is the Ivory Coast …

*What I am saying is that if we do not have missions in African countries, it does not mean that we have no contact with them. According to information I received via the Department of Foreign Affairs, nine visits were made to African countries between January 1987 and April 1988. During the same period 21 visits were made to South Africa by very important people from Africa.

In the countries where we do have representatives, such as Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho, our ambassador and representatives play an important part in that we have contact there with representatives from other countries who are stationed there. South Africa and events here are extremely interesting and newsworthy to the people elsewhere in Africa. Many more opinion-makers would like to visit South Africa, but are afraid of their governments, and these in turn do not want to give offence by contact with South Africa.

In view of this distinctiveness and this difference that exists in Southern Africa, and more specifically in the TBVC countries, I appeal for an exceptional insight in the handling of our staff in these countries by all of us in South Africa, and also by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Parliament.

I also request that special care be taken of our staff in the TBVC countries, in Southern Africa and in Africa with reference to financial remuneration. Put briefly, they literally deserve it.

†The well-known Prof De Lange is the chairman of the Council for Population Development. According to The Star of 29 April 1988, the following points, inter alia, were made at seminars that were held:

*The point I want to make is that one can implement partition as one chooses and have as many population development and constitutional programmes as one likes, but if one cannot succeed in making contact with the TBVC countries and the rest of Southern Africa in such a way that we can effect the success of this population development programme, nothing else will succeed, and I want to repeat that in that case we shall become a fourth-rate banana republic. To prevent this from happening, it is absolutely essential that we get our human relations and our internal policy and solutions in South Africa in order.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to react much to what the hon member for Langlaagte said because I could not actually make out what point he was trying to make. At one moment he was making a great fuss about the TBVC countries and the next he was criticising us about our policy of partition. If he wants to make such a fuss about the TBVC countries, he must tell his Government: “Get on with the job!” The job which the Government has to get on with is to listen to the CP and to institute partition. [Interjections.] The countries which have impressed him so much are the product of partition.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs does not seem to be here but I want to make only one reference to him. He spoke about soda ash but I want to tell him that he should not be so quick to propagate this because we do not think it is as wonderful an idea as they would have us believe. [Interjections.]

I want to return to the point at which I stopped. I told the hon the Minister that we thought it was too early to deduce anything from the discussions about Angola at this stage. Apparently the discussions are in an interim stage. From what leaked out and what was published in the Press, it is very clear that the revival of Resolution 435 will be involved in any settlement which may arise from discussions on Angola.

The CP, of course, adopted the standpoint long ago that it did not accept Resolution 435, but at the moment we think the burning question is what will happen when the withdrawal does take place, if something comes of the talks with the Cubans.

Resolution 435 dates back to 28 April 1978 and still figures prominently in the withdrawal of the Cubans. I want to accept that it is a matter which was discussed specifically by the parties last week and that the Government reflected before they participated in those discussions. Resolution 435 obviously includes the withdrawal of South African troops from South West according to a timetable, the appointment of an Untag force, in which South Africa will have a say, and the holding of free elections without interference. Resolution 435 is 10 years old already and we should like to know whether the Government will really accept it in its unrevised form if an agreement can be reached with the Cubans.

Over the past week or two the Nkomati Accord has been very prominent in South African news again. It seems as if it could be revived. The impression is being created among the South African public that the Nkomati Accord is the alpha and the omega of relations between South Africa and Mozambique but, as I read it and as far as I am concerned, the Nkomati Accord is actually rather limited in effect.

“Normal” traffic between South Africa and Mozambique existed in the time of the Portuguese, after the Portuguese withdrawal, before the Nkomati Accord, when the Nkomati Accord was on the rocks and I want to say that it will also exist after the Nkomati Accord has survived or gone under.

I am referring to our harbour and export facilities there; I know they are not of the best but they do exist. I am also referring to our involvement in the form of the assistance we furnish Mozambique and the organisation of their harbours and railways. I am referring to rail facilities and also to the miners who come from Mozambique.

These matters actually date from the time of Pres Paul Kruger and I am not trying to denigrate the Nkomati Accord now but the hon the Minister is inclined—I am saying this to him very amicably— when he speaks in the Eastern Transvaal, for instance, to want to know who will eat the oranges if he cannot export them in accordance with the Nkomati Accord.

The orange eaters!

That is not the point. I do not think we should accentuate the Nkomati affair to such a degree.

The hon members for Turffontein and Walvis Bay held it against me that I was critical about certain matters. I was critical. I am critical of this Government’s erratic approach toward the outside world. I want to tell them that I have tried to express this mildly. If I were to put it forcibly, I think there would be many red faces in this House. At this stage I am particularly critical of the Government’s total about-face in regard to foreign affairs.

We listened to the hon the Minister today and I thought I was listening to that young First Secretary in Sweden again when he revealed the Swedes’ treatment of the Laplanders to the world, and was supported by Mr Eric Louw in the matter. We knew a man who spoke like that but afterwards we experienced a phase for many years in this country, under this hon State President’s leadership, of appeasement of and genuflection before the outside world. Now, for the first time, after the CP achieved successes— actually in the three by-elections …

That is correct!

… this Government policy of genuflection and appeasement has been thwarted … [Interjections.] … and that is why an effort is now being made to exhibit visible forcefulness to the outside world. It is one of the CP achievements that it has halted the genuflection and appeasement on the part of the Government.

“Pik horn!”

That is what it is about, Sir.

I now want to come to the hon member for Innesdal. He said in his own style and idiom in this debate on the Foreign Affairs Vote that South Africa’s efforts had to be acceptable to Africa and, if we were not successful in this, we would have problems. I think that, when one has stripped his speech of everything he said to obfuscate and qualify it and has stripped it of all the provisos which he attached, one will find that he said the majority vote in South Africa had to decide. I shall not tackle him about this, however, because he left himself many loopholes. The fact of the matter is that I want to tell him that I am sick and tired of people who say that South Africa must change, even of foreign powers which say that South Africa must decide itself on how it will change—they will not tell us how to change; we must decide for ourselves.

If we change and institute reform as this Government has been trying to do for years, they say it is not enough or it is not right or it is not the way they want it. What the hon member is therefore actually appealing for and what has already happened in practice is that we allow too many people from outside to poke their noses into our business. Other people, other powers and other organisations are permitted to poke their noses into South Africa’s internal affairs far too much. As regards that point, I put it to the hon member for Innesdal, the hon member for Turffontein and all their colleagues that the CP says to the likes of them—I have just repeated it to people in England and in America—they must keep their noses out of South Africa’s internal affairs. We do not tolerate that type of interference. [Interjections.]

I put it to the hon member for Innesdal that, when one is strong and says this to those people, they understand the language one uses. [Interjections.] When one genuflects and appeases, however, when one creates expectations, one is squeezed and squeezed until one is blue in the face.

†The hon member for Houghton referred to this, Sir. She said we should refrain from provocative action.

Yes!

She said we should withdraw certain Bills. I want to ask her a question. This Government has already gone practically the whole way. This Government has done it all to the hon member’s satisfaction.

No! Come on, Tom!

Of course! [Interjections.] Have they received one word of praise or acknowledgement for what they have been doing? [Interjections.] No, not a single word! It did not pay off at all.

The Americans have said they acknowledge it!

The State Department, yes. But what else has come from the State Department so far? This pressure now comes from whence it comes. Simon Barber wrote last week that the Dellums and Wolpe actions were probably receiving a lot of approval on the part of the State Department. That is what Simon Barber wrote in his letter from Washington last week.

*Mr Chairman, all these things in sporting and other spheres—everything which this Government has done to satisfy and soothe the outside world—have not benefited it at all! [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is probably not necessary for me to react in detail to the hon member for Soutpansberg. I would perhaps just want to draw the attention of the House to the first part of his speech in this debate, when he said that when the CP came to power, it would use only South Africa’s interests as the measure of what South Africa’s foreign policy would be. However, he defined South Africa as a White state. Against that background I believe we shall be debating from different frameworks. Indeed, I do not think he will have any debating partners in this House if we try to speak in the same idiom without taking into account that he is talking about a completely different South Africa to the one the rest of the House is talking about.

With regard to South Africa’s position abroad, new opportunities have recently arisen which could also have positive implications for internal matters. We believe that there is, at this stage, an excellent opportunity that we dare not ignore.

Firstly, I am referring to the negotiations with regard to the Angolan issue. I believe that we are all under the impression that things have gone smoothly so far. We in the NDM welcome these negotiations. We hold a strong opinion that we have already expressed in this House, about our presence in Angola, and also about our position with regard to South West Africa. This standpoint is well-known. I do not want to refer to it again now, especially while delicate negotiations are in progress. I wish the hon the Minister, his department and everyone who is taking part, everything of the very best with those negotiations.

Incidentally, what is also becoming clear is that the total onslaught is petering out. In any case, it is not as strong as it was at first. I am referring specifically to indications that the Soviet Union is re-evaluating its role and position with regard to Southern Africa and South Africa in particular. The hon member for Turffontein also referred to the statements in the Press this morning made by a representative of the Ukraine. In view of the bond between the ANC and Moscow and also in view of remarks from Soviet circles, I think we must accept that the Soviet Union’s re-evaluation of its position will also have an effect on the policy changes of the ANC in Lusaka with regard to South Africa.

The Russians’ standpoint appears to be that the armed struggle is not the only option, but that the question of negotiations should also be considered. This standpoint is meeting with a wide response within the ANC as well. Discussion is in process there as well, and there is the potential for a re-evaluation of their role or at least of their strategies.

We are of the opinion that this changed environment creates an ideal opportunity for the Government to introduce new initiatives. I want to make it clear once again—this standpoint of ours is equally well-known—that we are opposed to violence, the violence of the armed struggle included. Like the hon member for Innesdal, we believe, however, that the ANC’s politics should be challenged and one cannot challenge their politics by talking to anyone other than those who articulate those politics.

That does not mean that we should agree with the ANC; on the contrary, everyone should maintain his own point of view when these discussions are entered into, but one must realise that a lasting peace and a lasting solution cannot be achieved without the ANC as a factor. This is the standpoint that the hon member for Innesdal adopted and by implication is adopting again today. I am referring to what has been said even from Government benches, for example, by the present hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who, in his previous capacity, once said that the ANC enjoyed the support of 40% of the Black population in South Africa. This is obviously a factor that cannot be ignored.

The Government now has the opportunity to abandon its requirement that the ANC must renounce violence before discussions can be held. In this way the ANC will be placed under pressure by South Africa on the one hand, but also by the Soviet Union on the other, while this will also meet a response among those elements within the ANC that are re-evaluating its strategy. By going to work in this manner and entering into discussion for the sake of the future, pressure from two sources can be placed on the ANC to re-evaluate its strategy of violence. [Interjections.]

Admittedly, this approach is very different to that of the Government—the hon the Minister recently referred to it—of “do your damnedest”. He tried to explain the circumstances and why he said it. The perception did not exist in our country, and apparently not overseas either, that it happened against the background the hon the Minister explained to us.

It is also true that there are unreasonable elements abroad to whom one would really like to say that almost all the time. However, it would be short-sighted to behave in a manner that would embarrass and in a sense also alienate those who are neutral or well-disposed towards us.

In a sense this approach would also create the impression that there is no co-ordination between foreign affairs, defence and the security institutions. Therefore, we find that the American proponents of sanctions on Capitol Hill saw no chance of success before the Government acted against the 17 organisations and 18 individuals. Not one of them believed that they had any chance, not even Messrs Wolpe and Solarz, whom the hon the Minister referred to.

A further example is the action in Gaberone, and in particular the action that had to be taken overseas while the hearings on the Hill were in progress. I do not even want to involve the merit of those actions in this matter, but unless it was really essential—and in that case there should have been a proper explanation—this untimely action merely gave the cause of the proponents of sanctions in the USA a tremendous boost. In this way we are indeed giving our enemies the opportunity to do their “damnedest” while our friends are being placed in a position in which they cannot freely support our cause and try to help us.

We in these benches have said on various occasions that apartheid, sanctions and violence are the same and that they are all negative and that all isolation is negative.

However, if the Government were to continue in this manner—which was described as “erratic” by the hon member for Soutpansberg—the onslaught would continue to isolate and boycott us further and the Government would then have to carry the responsibility of internal decline, and in particular economic and political decline. It is also a question of calculating when things should be done. I want to conclude by making a plea to the Government not to let any opportunities that may present themselves, go by, and that with the changed Russian standpoint on Southern Africa in general and on South Africa in particular, there is now the opportunity to be more reasonable.

Mr Chairman, I shall refer to the contribution of the hon member for Randburg in my speech. However, at this stage, I want to say for the sake of the record that I definitely do not share his enthusiasm about the ANC. The hon member could just as well have made his speech from the benches to the right of him; that is actually where he belongs with his ideology and his school of thought.

Today I want to talk about our relations with the United States of America. The United States of America is one of the most powerful states in and also the leader of the Western World. We are a part of that world because we share the same values. Yet American politicians reject that part of the South African community that identifies most closely with them. It is often difficult for us to understand, but then it is also true that it is not easy to understand the United States of America.

In 1976, an American of Indian descent, Vine Deloria Junior, wrote the following: “No one knows at the present time what America really is.” That is still the case today. It is reflected in their foreign relations.

Arthur M Schlesinger Junior said in his book The Cycles of American History. “The American character is filled with contradiction and paradox. So in consequence is American foreign policy.”

On the one hand one has the empirical approach with a concrete and historical outlook on life. The policy of the Reagan administration of constructive involvement with regard to this country apparently had its origin in that approach. Of course, self-interest also plays a role in the Reagan approach. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, we are, like the USA, anti-communist, and secondly we possess strategic assets that cannot easily be ignored. It is therefore in the wider American interest not to spurn us entirely.

As early as 1778, George Washington wrote to Henry Lawrens: “No nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest.”

The other American approach, besides the empirical one, is the ideological approach. In his book, Schlesinger describes one of the by-products of the ideology as “… the conviction that the anointed country … knows the interest of other countries better than they know their own interest”. It sounds very much like our experience of the American Congress.

That approach has its roots in American history. The so-called founding fathers were harsh realists. They saw their Republic as an experiment— a risky experiment that might not succeed. When it endured, their descendants forgot their early history. Americans began to believe that it was within their power to change the world. For example, Woodrow Wilson said in his collected documents: “We have come to redeem the world by giving it liberty and justice.”

That is the attitude that even President Reagan expresses on occasion. For example, on 8 March 1983 in Orlando, Florida, he said that when the force of evil was loose in the world “we are enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might”. Needless to say, such an approach easily gives rise to selective morality and objectionable hypocrisy.

American foreign policy with regard to the Soviet Union and China, where there is no democracy or prospect of democracy, is completely accessible. A slow, incremental time-scale for change is acceptable in those cases. However, we are descended upon with what Peter L Berger of the University of Boston very aptly called “… problem-solving task-force mentality”. That is how they operate. We must suffer because we are small, young and still developing and they see their way clear to changing us.

When all is said and done, this does not help us much. The Americans will not change. We will not be able to change them. That is one of the many realities that we have to deal with. It is frustrating and it makes one very angry, but American dualism will remain with us. It is a deeply engrained characteristic of that nation.

This does not mean that we can simply dismiss the Americans or ignore them. The United States of America remains the leader of that part of the world community with which we identify. They are still the preservers of the civilised values that we too hold dear. They are an enormous industrial country that exercises a determining influence on the attitude and actions of the international community, a community that we must remain a part of in the interests of our continued existence and development.

If we cannot change the Americans, at least we should try to change their opinions. We should try to bring about a greater balance between their empirical and ideological approach to our situation. It is a fact that we share their fundamental moral values. However, we are obliged to give expression to and to promote those values within the context of the realities in which we find ourselves. We cannot do anything else, although we share the same values. One of the members of the American House of Representatives who has already done us much harm, is Mr Steve Solarz, to whom other speakers have also referred this afternoon. He campaigns for punitive measures against us because, as he says, he is opposed to grand apartheid. He describes it as—

We do not have a problem with that. We are also opposed to that. After all, we want to develop a system that will ensure political participation for everyone.

Furthermore, Mr Solarz says that he wants everyone to have a vote, but, he says we should remember—

Therefore, even this liberal American whom I have quoted from a Leadership publication of 1985 considers the CP’s partition option as a possibility. Yet he pleads for boycotts against us. Perhaps one should see it as a manifestation of his lack of realism.

The fact is that we are bound, on the grounds of our own conviction, to political change in this country, with which the entire Western World should be content. We shall do it ourselves. All that we need is understanding of the realities that we are dealing with and a reasonable amount of time in which to do it.

Since the Americans are behaving in such a self-righteous way, I will no doubt be pardoned if I give them a little advice as well. They would do well to give us a chance to solve our own problems. It may mean something to them in future, because I do not believe that they have solved all their own problems. They think they have, but they have only scratched the surface. Their problems have not yet been fundamentally addressed.

During several visits to the USA, I did not come across many Black people who were satisfied with their circumstances. Why are most people who are unemployed Black? Why is the juvenile crime rate among Black people so high? Why do so many Black people in a prosperous country like America live in critical conditions? Why do Black Americans find it necessary to implement consumer boycotts against Whites?

I am not trying to score points—I understand the problems that the Americans are having. I am merely asking that they show some understanding for ours.

There is something else that I understand, and that is that the American political attitude towards us is, to a large degree, the result of the approach of our own South African liberalists. Dr Calvin A Woodward of the Valdosta State University, Georgia, writes—

He refers here to the American approach of non-support of Pretoria. He says—

I want to say today that the myth of a non-racial democratic South Africa which is proposed by the left-wing parties, and also by the hon member for Randburg’s movement, is still an obstacle to better relations with the USA. It creates the unrealistic expectation of so-called Black majority rule in South Africa—something which will not come about peacefully.

We have exchanged the ideology of apartheid for a pragmatic approach that is based on reality. If we want to make a breakthrough on the international front, we shall have to reject the ideology of the leftists as well, namely the rigid, unyielding insistence on non-racialism in a society that consists of a multiplicity of races. One can only hope that the leftists of this country will see the need for this before it is too late, because it is in the interests of our continued existence that they do so.

Mr Chairman, I agree entirely with the hon member for Stellenbosch that South Africa must solve its own problems and that the Americans should perhaps pay more attention to the problems they have in America.

Admittedly, to state South Africa’s case in the international arena is no easy task. On the one hand, one is confronted with unrealistic demands. For example, there are those who immediately want one man, one vote in a unitary system, and who are in favour of the surrender of power and who will be satisfied with nothing less than Black majority rule. On the other hand, there is a divided South Africa in which suspicion is constantly being cast on the reform initiatives. In particular, it is what I call the national-socialist grouping, the reactionaries, who focus the attention of the outside world on themselves.

In a very interesting article in Die Suid-Afrikaan, Claus Van Der Rob, who is connected to the Political Institute in Ebenhausen, appealed to the West to look at South Africa with new initiatives and with a fresh approach. He says:

If one looks at the Western initiatives over the past 10 years, especially those in South Africa, one realises that they have failed miserably. In the late seventies there was the contact group that was not prepared to accept the other internal parties in South West Africa as participants and which recognised only one party, namely Swapo. Hon members will remember that in the Security Council in 1978, the Western Five voted in favour of having Walvis Bay integrated into Namibia despite the Western international law in terms of which Walvis Bay was never a part of Namibia. That was succeeded by the Carter-Genscher era that made no secret of their predilection for nothing less than a one man, one vote system in a unitary system. The mission from the Commonwealth in the late 1980’s had only one goal in mind, and that was to persuade the Whites to hand over power by upholding Zimbabwe as a model and as a possible alternative for South Africa. Finally, we are being coerced by sanctions.

When all is said and done, it seems that one will never be able to satisfy the Western powers unless one capitulates. Partiality, prejudice, sectional interest and double standards are the West’s main weapons against South Africa. Despite the fact that the Black people in South Africa are better off than the people in any of the neighbouring states to the north—despite the fact that there is no apartheid there and that the Black people here are ostensibly under the yoke of the apartheid system—and despite the fact that millions of people come to work in this country, and that we can say that we have done a great deal to uplift the Blacks, I believe that there are things that will have to be attended to and that we will have to rectify, things that make it difficult for us to defend South Africa abroad. Let us be honest with one another. When one drives around Hillbrow with a tourist and one tries to explain to him how the Group Areas Act works, it does not go down very well.

The same goes for race classification. When a foreigner visits Parliament and one takes him to the House of Representatives and he hears the people speaking the same language as those in this House, one has problems. Some of those people even have a lighter skin colour than some people in this House. It then becomes very difficult to explain racial classification. One must grant that the initiatives taken by the hon the State President have created new opportunities and opened doors. A great deal of progress has been made in the field of social interaction and labour relations in particular. However, in order to retain our credibility overseas and to fight sanctions, it is essential that we introduce an umbrella reform strategy in which moderates can be encouraged and united. We must tell the White voters what they should hear and not what they want to hear. A clear statement of intention could serve as a framework of principles that would lend sufficient credibility, not just to South Africans, but also to our friends, and we have very few friends overseas. Such a statement, which included a charter of human rights, would, in a polarised and fragmented community like South Africa, create the necessary confidence and belief that there was indeed a future for us. Let there be no doubt: The symbolic value of such a statement would make it so much easier for those who wanted to negotiate to come forward. It would bring us so much closer to the democratic communities and countries in the Western World.

Finally, I believe that the new initiatives with regard to the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola deserve mention. In this regard the hon member for Randburg referred to the change in strategy—if I understood him correctly—and that it is quite likely that the possibility now exists that the ANC can be included in the process of negotiation. Neither the USSR nor the USA want to lose their super-power status in Africa. An open military defeat for the MPLA would undermine this status. On the other hand, neither the USA nor the USSR are prepared to become involved in an expensive arms race. As is the case in Angola, the Russians would not like to see South Africa become a source of tension between the super powers. Therefore, the emphasis has shifted from the military to the political sphere. It is here that my problem lies. The fact that the Russians have changed their strategy does not mean that they have suddenly become nice guys or that they would like to give the ANC an opportunity to participate. As Gorbachev said, it is a question of economic implications. They can simply no longer afford the war. It is costing them too much, they are losing too much and they are being beaten too often. That is the reason for this sudden change in strategy.

This change in strategy was confirmed by Pres Chissano’s visit to Moscow where the Russians made it clear that they had to use another strategy to eventually win the war. In the short term, the Russians want to ensure that the ANC/SACP alliance is the most important anti-apartheid factor in the negotiation settlement. According to the Soviet Union’s Africa Institute, the USSR envisages the eventual establishment of a Marxist-Leninist state in South Africa, although this will probably only come about in the next century. Therefore, we must anticipate that despite the USSR’s willingness to come to the negotiating table now, it is not going to put an end to Russian expansionism in Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon member for Hillbrow on the positive components in his speech. Yet he did create certain problems when he spoke about the Group Areas Act. In this regard I think it would be advisable for the hon member to take cognizance of the fact that this entire matter will be discussed on another occasion later in the year. He will be able to debate its advantages and disadvantages from his point of view.

The hon member also discussed a manifesto of human rights. That cannot be seen in isolation, because it has to be read in conjunction with the concept of group rights which are of particular importance here in South Africa.

There is another aspect I want to deal with here this afternoon, and that is that one stands amazed at the way in which untruths, half-truths and unsubstantiated conclusions are noised abroad in support of a standpoint. Account is seldom taken or understanding seldom shown of the extent of the work which subsequently has to be done and the amounts of money which have to be spent to rectify these erroneous impressions which have been created in this way. We have already become used to this irresponsible conduct by people whose aim it is to make this country ungovernable. These days, however, it has to an increasing extent become fashionable for those who purport to want to take over the Government by normal democratic processes to be guilty of this kind of conduct.

A few days ago, on 28 April, the HNP, which does not want to realise once and for all that it has no role to play in South African politics, published an extremely irresponsible report about the Department of Foreign Affairs in its official organ, Die Afrikaner. In the report statements were made about three particular aspects which should not be allowed to go unanswered.

Firstly it was reported that a building to the value of R100 million was going to be constructed for the department next to the Union Buildings. The alleged construction costs were completely exaggerated because the estimated construction costs, expressed in rand value, were R39 million in February 1987, plus approximately R5,5 million for professional fees. If approval is granted and the building is completed within the 1990-1991 financial year, the final construction costs would only be an estimated R61,95 million. In the report the envisaged building is derogatorily referred to as “Pik se Witolifanthoofkwartier”.

The reporter does not take account of the fact either that the building would be accommodating a Government department, regardless of which government would be in power. At present this department finds itself in the extremely unenviable position of being housed in five buildings and two residential dwellings. Some of these buildings have been vacated by other departments because they could not meet those departments’ needs. This wide-spread location of staff is inevitably extremely ineffective and untenable for the Department of Foreign Affairs because its activities cannot be fragmented in this way and the department’s staff, for obvious reasons, must constantly be in close contact with top management.

Secondly the report continues by saying that Foreign Affairs is also the only department which allegedly had to appoint a social worker to assist in the problems which arose from the shocking personal behaviour of the department’s overseas staff. This is not the only department that appoints such personnel, and this conclusion was drawn by the reporter for purely sensational reasons.

The name of this department, which is South Africa’s show-case abroad, has been besmirched in this way when in fact the department should rather have been complimented upon this progressive initiative that has been taken. The appointment of experts of this kind contributes to social problems being avoided in such a workforce that performs highly specialised work under pressure and tremendous tension in the interests of South Africa.

We so easily lose sight of the fact that demonstrations and threats form part of the mission’s daily experiences. Bomb explosions, bomb threats, so-called peaceful demonstrations, demonstrators who disrupt peaceful receptions and occupy offices, violent conduct such as damaging of property and burglaries as well as threats of assault on the staff have become aspects which the staff of our missions have had to take into account. In this regard one merely needs to think of the recent events in Canberra. Against this background the need for a social worker in this department is understandable.

Thirdly, the newspaper also reported that the department is the one growing most rapidly and the reporter alleges furthermore that the department is the one that shows the fewest results of all departments. How does he measure that? He is comparing the incomparable. Because of the nature of the department’s activities, full particulars of their activities are not available, and no annual report is published, unlike many other departments.

They who criticise so easily avoid taking cognizance of the sustained and enraged onslaught which is being made on the RSA to render our country ungovernable and internationally isolated.

Never in its history has the spotlight of the world been focussed so glaringly on the RSA and never before have the attacks been so intense and unreasonable. This onslaught is not only increasing in intensity, but is becoming ever wider in scope. To intensify its complexity, these attacks are increasingly coming from unexpected quarters.

I think it is general knowledge that South Africa, compared with other smaller countries, has limited diplomatic representation abroad. This representation tends to be concentrated in the West. Our missions are for the most part the only instruments which are used to promote South Africa’s image by publicising its policies and keeping the Government informed of overseas developments. These are the officials who find themselves in the front-line of the attacks against the RSA and to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. It would appear that because of the success which has been achieved, violent measures are being adopted because if they had been unsuccessful it would not have been essential to threaten them with violence.

Large amounts of money are being spent on the intensification of the attacks against South Africa. The UN continues to be one of the most important bodies for the initiation and co-ordination of all anti-South African actions. During the 1986-87 financial year the UN alone spent an amount of R113 million on its anti-South African activities.

Recently an increasing number of private organisations abroad have come forward with anti-South African campaigns. In this way the activities of the missions are necessarily increased, especially on a bilateral level. Besides this there are also many international organisations that pursue ceaselessly their activities against the RSA. We are all aware of the economic onslaught which is being conducted against the Republic at present. One of the tasks of the Department of Foreign Affairs is to try and combat this onslaught. The Republic’s economic relations form the basis of its international position, and a large percentage of the RSA’s GNP is dependent upon the RSA’s economic interactions with other countries.

In all these spheres one need only consider what appears in the Press and what is published in specialised journals in order to identify the department’s successes. The latest peace initiatives have once again captured the imagination. All the preparations and negotiations which have thus far taken place to make the most recent negotiations possible fall within the ambit of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is upon this that I want to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon the Minister and his department, knowing full well that there is still a difficult struggle ahead, which I also know the hon the Minister will accept as a challenge.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to react directly on what the hon member for Fauresmith said, but in the course of my speech I would like to touch on some subjects to which he also referred.

I returned from Lisbon an hour or two ago, where I had the opportunity of attending a three-day conference convened by the Prime Minister of Portugal, Prof Dr Anibal Cavaco Silva, and Dr Martin Bangerman, the West German Minister of Economic Affairs. This was a conference primarily dealing with international trade and international development, and it was a concentration of what was known as “leaders of centre parties”. By its very nature it was heavily concentrated in Europe and Latin America and also in Africa to an extent. While the subject was not South Africa per se, I had the opportunity, over three days in the little village of Sintra, of having frank and informal discussions with a wide range of people on the South African issue.

My visit there was preceded by a hurried visit to London where I also had the opportunity of exposure to a number of people—the Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher; The Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe; The Minister of State for Foreign and Common Wealth Affairs, Mrs Lynda Chalker; Donald Anderson of the Labour Party; and then also people from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Trade Union Council.

It was therefore a very extensive European exposure. I should like to convey certain overall and dominant impressions as they came across to me, although individuals reacted in their own different ways. I did not find people hysterical about South Africa. I did not find them to be in a punitive mood. They did not seem to be seeking vengeance for what might have gone wrong. I found a high degree of understanding of the complexities of the situation, even among people who were taking a very anti-South African or anti-South African Government line.

What I did find were two dominant features. One was what I can only describe as a sadness—a sadness that in spite of world opinion, in spite of world pressure, in spite of what had been done from outside and in spite of all the bold statements about what was going to be done inside South Africa, apartheid still lives on in this country. There is a sadness about this. That sadness is aggravated by the fact that apartheid not only lives on but is reinforced by emergency regulations which deprive people of basic civil liberties and freedom of political action and association.

That is right!

Yes, there is a sadness in the Western World about that fact. Secondly, there is a deep sense of concern. There is concern about the fact that in spite of the potential of South Africa—I met nobody who did not understand the exciting potential of South Africa—the majority of the citizens of this country are denied basic civil rights. The essence of that concern is that if that were to continue in any part of the world, it had to lead to violence. The inevitable consequence of denying people basic civil rights is violence. People are concerned about that in regard to South Africa. They are concerned because it means that violence will spill over and there will be instability in the Southern African region. There is a deep sense of concern at this fact.

I believe that many of these people are and have been hoping desperately to see a fundamental breakthrough on the part of the Government of South Africa. They no longer have any confidence, however, that that is in fact going to take place. There have been too many Rubicons. There have been too many unfulfilled promises. There are people who would prefer not to have increasing pressure brought to bear on South Africa. On the other hand there is the inevitability that increasing pressure is going to build up in and on South Africa because the Government is either unable or unwilling to make that fundamental breakthrough and, in the political sense, to reach out and take the hand of friendship of the majority of people.

I have no doubt that the pressures are going to build up unless some fundamental change takes place on the initiative of this Government. It is not that people want it to happen. There is a sense of foreboding that it is going to happen, and there is a sense of unhappiness about it. We should understand this.

If there is anything to be cheerful about, I would say it is the fact that especially among people with a specific interest in the Southern African region—this would go for the British, because it affects the interests of the Commonwealth, and also for the Portuguese in particular—the ray of light has been the developments in connection with South Africa’s relationships with Mozambique and also the work that has been done on the Cahora Bassa scheme and the Cahora Bassa agreement as such, as well as the discussions that took place in London earlier this week on the issue of Angola and the military situation in that country.

I believe that the stakes are high. I would hope that the people who are going to negotiate on our side are in fact going to negotiate, and I hope that politicians are also going to be part of this deal. I hope they are not going to negotiate by thundering at each other in the Press and the media—that goes for the Cubans as well as the South Africans—but that those negotiations will be quiet, intense and deliberate in order to bring peace and to save lives. I believe that should be the style of the negotiations, and I have no doubt that if it was left to the department itself, that would be the style and the character of the negotiations that are to take place. I wish those negotiators well. There is a lot at stake in this particular issue.

I want to say a word or two about the Far East because, as sanctions bite and our traditional trading partners move away from us, trade with the Far East is increasing. The Far East has therefore become a critically important part of South Africa’s economic well-being.

Japan is now South Africa’s number one trading partner; we have significant reciprocal economic ties with the Republic of China; Hong Kong is a very important area of international communications and finance, and also a door of access to the People’s Republic of China. These are three critically important areas.

Firstly, I want to put it to the hon the Minister that our representation there should be of the highest calibre, in terms of both personnel and numbers. We have only three listening posts in the Far East, and it is my view that they should be staffed suitably and effectively, because that area is very significant from both a political and an economic point of view.

Secondly, we should neither take the relatively favourable climate that exists there for granted nor ignore the emergence of the People’s Republic of China as a growing economic and political factor in the Far East. The hon the Minister is aware that in spite of the fact that Japan is a trading partner of ours, a host of visa restrictions has been in effect there for some time, and that the MITI, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, recently advised Japanese businessmen not to expand their businesses but rather, if anything, to contract them. Whether that is a result of international or American pressure, or whether the Japanese themselves want it that way, is irrelevant. What is relevant is that that factor is beginning to emerge and I believe one has to take it into account.

Hon members know that the hon member for Houghton and I were in the People’s Republic of China for two weeks last year. We could not help taking note of the fact that 1 072 million people— compare this with Japan and its 110 million— were going through some process of economic reform towards a more market-oriented economy, and had achieved a growth rate in the gross domestic product of between 8% and 9% in the previous four years. I mention this not only because it is important to take note of what is happening there, but also because the British colony of Hong Kong, which is important to us in terms of finance, communications and trade, is going to revert to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, a mere eight years from now. However, I believe we should not wait until that happens to see whether we can establish more effective links than the existing ones.

In the light of Hong Kong’s return to China and of the gradual rapprochement that is taking place as the old guard dies out, I believe that one should not assume that the two elements of China, the Republic and the People’s Republic, will be at loggerheads indefinitely. There could well be some kind of coming together of the ROC and the PRC at some stage in the future.

We should therefore be engaging in some anticipatory politics in that area and increasing our representation there. We should at least see whether some links or contacts, even if only of a commercial kind, can be established, not only with Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, but also with the PRC. I say this because, while we found ourselves differing with the Chinese on many issues, the hon member for Houshton and I found a greater degree of pragmatism than we would have anticipated when it came to international relationships and to trade.

The case I want to put to this Government is that the East is becoming more important to the world and is therefore more important to South Africa as well. I believe that we should pay very special attention to developments in the Far East and see that we are in tune with them, and that we should maintain the best possible relationships with the important actors in that area.

Business interrupted.

Order! On behalf of Mr Speaker I should just like to bring to the attention of hon members that the new Standing Rules of Parliament come into operation today. Under the new Rules there will no longer be Committee Stages and all business will be controlled by the elected presiding officers from this Chair.

†I also want to point out to hon members that the presiding officer will in future call on hon members to speak in accordance with a list of speakers supplied to the presiding officer in advance. A speaker will be allotted a certain time for his speech by his Whips and he will be interrupted by the presiding officer when the time allotted to him has expired. In terms of the Rules a member may not speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time on a Vote.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my sincere thanks for the opportunity to be here in the House of Representatives again this afternoon to discuss our Vote with hon members. It is always a very pleasant experience for the hon the Minister and me to come here. Consequently we are again looking forward to a very pleasant discussion of our Vote this afternoon.

I think there can be little doubt about the importance of this Vote. When we talk about Black education we talk about the future of everyone in this country and for that reason it is very pleasant to be able to do so with these hon members this afternoon. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the hon members here most sincerely for the positive approach they always have.

At the outset I want to make a few statements which I consider important. Firstly I want to express my appreciation to our hon Minister of Education and Development Aid who leads the way like a great general and gives us guidance on this important matter of education. Hon members will agree with me when I say that we would find it hard to find a man who is better equipped to handle this extremely sensitive portfolio. We should like to thank him for the way in which he leads us. It is a very great privilege to work under his guidance.

The Director-General of our department of Education and Training, Dr A B Fourie, wishes to retire later in the year. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank him for the contribution he has made to Black education. He has had a very fine career in education. He is an educationist par excellence. I should like to thank him for not only being the Director-General for the past three and a half years, but also for being my friend on whom I could always rely for his extensive knowledge of and wisdom regarding education. I should like to wish him and Mrs Fourie a very enjoyable retirement. May they have many prosperous years ahead of them.

Our officials, from the two Deputy Directors-General down to the lowest rank in our department, all made their unique contributions too. I should also like to thank all our officials for the big contribution they make, frequently under difficult circumstances. They are educationists, people who have been trained in education. They frequently have to deal with crisis management which is a field for which they are not all that well equipped. However, I think we can say today that our officials support and assist us extremely well and I should very much like to thank each and every one of them most sincerely for this.

†I would also like to extend a few words of thanks to the various advisory bodies for their assistance and for their valuable advice to the hon the Minister and to myself. I have had the privilege of discussing matters which are of vital importance for the education of our children and which were of great interest to many of our parents and community leaders. I would like to thank them for their approach with regard to this very important aspect pertaining to our children’s future.

*Mr Chairman, let me in passing thank a few hon members who accepted our invitation to pay a visit to our department in Pretoria during the course of last year, for taking the trouble to do so. Their visit also emphasized their interest in the weal and woe of Black education. I should like to thank the hon members for Berg River, Southern Free State, Wentworth and Grassy Park most sincerely. We enjoyed our day with them very much. I am sure that they also found their visit most enlightening.

†Last year in this House the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid made public a comprehensive report on the education for Black pupils in rural areas. This report represents a major milestone in the development of education for Black pupils and contains some 128 recommendations—all of which are aimed at the improvement of the quality of education, particularly in rural and farm schools. I am happy to report today that many of these recommendations have already been implemented and that many positive results are evident. I would like to mention a few. A national plan for the development of rural education has been drawn up. This plan is continually being revised and adapted to meet changing needs and circumstances. This also includes the siting of schools in such a manner that no child will be further than five kilometres from a school.

One of the biggest problems is the lack of secondary facilities. To alleviate this, standard 6 and 7 classes have been introduced in more than 400 farm schools. Where facilities exist or can be provided, courses up to standard 10 can also be considered.

Pre-service and in-service training programmes have been introduced specifically for farm school teachers who have to deal with peculiar problems such as teaching two or more standards simultaneously.

The establishment of smaller colleges of education for specific communities will result, I believe, in more better qualified teachers becoming available for farm schools.

School readiness programmes are being extended to farm schools, and career education, which some hon members of this House have experienced at first hand, is now also being introduced in a number of farm schools.

In order to step up the control and administration of farm schools, education advisors are being appointed and, in some cases, competent travelling principals assume responsibility for four to six farm schools in a particular area. Where possible, farm schools are also converted from State-aided to public schools, the land and buildings being rented from the farmer.

What is very important is that the basis and formula for subsidies payable to farmers have been revised, with a resultant substantial increase in the subsidy amounts. I think this is a very positive development.

*Probably one of the most extensive programmes being applied at farm schools is the one pertaining to the development of management and the improvement of achievements. This is an expansion of the programme which has been presented to officials in the regions and headmasters of and heads of department in public schools since 1984.

The purpose of the development and improvement of achievement programmes is to train managers, ie headmasters and senior teachers who are effective in achieving their goal; who are goal-orientated in the utilisation of resources; who care about their subordinates; and who focus on the interests of the child.

The following two points of departure are particularly important: Every education manager is held responsible for both the training and the improvement of the achievements of his subordinates; and in addition the so-called “Top-Down” approach is used. The regional manager receives a “Top-Down” from the consultant— who is from the private sector—and conveys this to the assistant directors. Each assistant director then trains his own ring inspectors and in this way the training is taken further and there is a kind of waterfall effect.

Four of these modules are management orientated and seven are professional, ie aimed at improving achievements in the classroom—and that is what we want.

A start was made with the training and development of the programme in April 1987. Up to the end of March 1988 a total of 4 937 managers out of a target number of 5 100 had been trained in the six regions of our department where there are farm schools. For module one, “Self-management”, 4 662 managers out of a possible 4 678 were trained.

A comprehensive guide containing guidelines for farm school managers was also drawn up and sent to all farm school managers. What is important is that after the core programme and module one had been presented, a survey indicated that there was a fine improvement in respect of aspects of school management touched on by the relevant programmes. Headmasters find the programmes extremely positive and valuable and conduct themselves with new self-confidence and greater authority.

I took a look at the programmes myself after they had been implemented and I really think that we are making progress in this field. I believe that the management development and improvement programmes are not only among the most comprehensive in South Africa, but that they are also an example of how the department takes the lead by means of innovative ideas, and with empathy, to overcome unique challenges and in this way change apparently insurmountable obstacles to exciting progress. I believe that as long as the individual child with his needs and ideals is the most important target of all our strategies, we will eventually achieve the final objective of a happy and prosperous future for our fatherland and all its inhabitants.

†The last matter I would like to refer to is that of technical colleges. If I remember correctly, the hon member for Grassy Park also mentioned this in his speech last year. I think we are all aware of the growing need in South Africa for more and better skilled and technically qualified people. In this regard the courses offered at our technical colleges make a major contribution. In 1980, at the time of the Riekert and Wiehahn reports, the Department of Education and Training had only two technical colleges with 401 students. Last year, only seven years later, we had 20 colleges with more than 8 000 students following a variety of courses. Technical colleges—as community colleges—are satisfying a twofold need. On the one hand they serve to enrich the student. They also give him opportunities for advancement, equip him with skills and help him to develop himself, thus benefiting the community at the same time. On the other hand they provide for the manpower needs of commerce and industry at the lower and middle levels.

These technical colleges make provision for a variety of post-school practice-orientated courses, such as block release courses for apprentices, a one year pre-service trade training course to prepare students for their apprenticeship, trade training for adults in collaboration with the Department of Manpower and enrichment programmes aimed at satisfying community needs. These courses are structured in accordance with needs and may be of a vocational or an enrichment nature. They are aimed at the acquisition of specific skills and knowledge. Examples of courses that are already being presented are the woodwork, bricklaying and know-your-computer courses.

*Technical college training obviously meets the specific needs of a particular group and therefore does not address the more general needs for technical orientation and career guidance. For this reason fewer than 1% of all matriculants in the country are matriculating with technical subjects at the moment. It has therefore become necessary for this percentage to be drastically increased and in this regard the Department of Education and Training has taken the lead with the development of a career education model with which some hon members are already acquainted. I shall refer to this again later, but I wanted to make a few introductory remarks first.

I am looking forward to a pleasant discussion and also to listening to the speeches of hon members.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. Firstly I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the opportunity that we, as a parliamentary study group, had of visiting Black schools in the Pretoria area during November 1987. We owe a special vote of thanks to the Deputy Directors-General entrusted with administrative development services and management services, Dr D H Meiring and Mr J L C Strydom respectively, for their kindness and for the arrangements they made. We were impressed with the work done in the Pretoria area—I think of Soshanguve and Medunsa, for example—and I wish them well on the road ahead.

There are a few points I should like to mention to the hon the Minister. I want to know to what extent Black people can participate in the statutory advisory bodies which advise him. In this connection I am referring, for example, to the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites, which consists of White members only. Other committees, such as the Universities and Technikons Advisory Council, the Statutory Committee of Educational Heads and the Research Committee on Educational Structures, are useful, but they do not promote the reform initiative, providing an opportunity for more and more Black people to be trained.

The hon the State President envisages appointing a Black Deputy Minister of Education. Are there any Blacks who are receiving training and the necessary experience to be able to take over this enormous responsibility? The SATC was started exclusively for White teachers. Black teachers cannot belong to it, as they would in the case of Black lawyers or Black doctors who belong to a bar council or medical council respectively.

The motivation in respect of pre-primary education is praiseworthy. We saw how children were prepared in the best possible manner for their formal school careers. We also saw how dedicated officials were in seeing that those children were well prepared for their formal school careers.

The home environments of most of the pupils attending our schools are not conducive to promoting the formal educational situation at school. School readiness is the most important aim of pre-primary education. Pre-primary education gives the child an opportunity to explore his world while he receives quality support to help his development. In essence a high dropout and repeat rate in our schools is attributable to a lack of these facilities. Thanks to this type of progress children will be able to enjoy school life more readily and make a success of it.

Compulsory school attendance for Black children is still a dream. There are still 1,01 million Black children outside the classrooms. We do, however, appreciate the serious stand taken by the hon the Minister’s department.

The increased subsidy for farm schools will help to upgrade the quality of education in the rural areas.

The outstanding work which the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are carrying out in the form of discussions and negotiations with parental and community representatives and opinion-makers, is leading to mutual understanding and trust in an effort to normalise education and improve relationships, and we appreciate it enormously. We do not seem to be working as a team in Parliament, however. We are relying largely on the hon the Minister to carry out the negotiating process. The hon the Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services, and Mr Riaan Eksteen, on whom we pinned great hopes for real reform, have left the political arena. Dr Dennis Worrall and Mr Wynand Malan are involved in small political groupings, where their impact …

Order! I regret to interrupt the hon member, but we are dealing with the Vote “Education and Training” and the hon member must please stick to it. The hon member may continue.

Dr Dennis Worrall and Mr Wynand Malan are involved in small political groupings, where …

Order! No, we are busy with education and the hon member must stick to that.

I shall then repeat this in the debate on the next Vote.

Order! Yes, the hon member may mention it under that Vote, but his time has not yet expired; he may continue.

Thank you, Mr Chairman, but that will suffice for the moment.

In that case I shall call upon the next speaker.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of this debate it is a privilege for me to be able to thank the department and the hon Ministers concerned for the manner in which they keep members of Parliament informed of Press statements. I think it is one of the few departments—if not the only one—which regularly keeps us informed of speeches and, in particular, statements. We do not have to go and search for them in the newspapers; we receive them daily on our desks.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister for assuring us in his speech in the House of Assembly that the supply of free stationery will from now on be normal procedure in the department. I think this is something for which we have been striving for a long time, and parity has been achieved in all the departments. We want to congratulate them once again.

The discussion of education in South Africa is a subject which is always laden with emotion, because it is a matter which deeply affects every parent and the community as a whole and is the most important factor in the future of South Africa. It is also a subject which unites us, because it affects everyone in the country and is not applicable only to specific groups. This subject is important to me because it should focus on the future, and that is why we must do the necessary planning now, so that we can meet the needs of the future. Education is therefore an investment in the future. Unless we act courageously and consider education against the background of the challenges in the South African community, I do not believe we shall achieve our aims in education.

In considering the hon the Minister’s speech, I am worried about what the hon the Minister said we are not going to achieve. I am glad the hon the Minister once again stated his objective to create equal opportunities in education for all. What worries me is that the hon the Minister weighs this up against economic growth and the onslaught against South Africa’s economy. The hon the Minister also spoke about the affordability and the cost-effectiveness of education. Although we realise what the current realities are, and we know that education costs money, education is an emotional matter, and I must say that is one of our major problems when we have to justify or defend changes in the country.

I am also worried about the hon the Minister’s quoting a figure such as 1 015 000 as part of the number of Black pupils who do not receive education. It also worries me that the hon the Minister is putting forward criteria for when compulsory education should be implemented. The fact that he mentioned three conditions which will have to be met before it can be implemented, actually creates a problem for us, because I cannot remember or attest to any other cases in the country where the supply of education depended on certain conditions being met. It seems to me that we are placing the onus on the parent or the community and not on the State on which this responsibility rests in the case of the other groups.

It is true that Black education has made enormous strides in the past, and one must congratulate the hon the Minister on what his department and officials are doing in respect of programmes for teacher-training, the upgrading of teachers, salaries, etc. These are praiseworthy achievements. If we get trapped, however, into saying that compulsory education must meet these three conditions, I am afraid that the criticism levelled against us will be that we do not have the necessary dynamism and vision to educate the Black child.

The criticism against South Africa is that our education is discriminatory. If we use various arguments about culture and community differences, when there is still such a large number of children not attending school, we cannot really expect our critics to stop attacking us. We must use the symbol of our education, which should be unity, to lead our people into the future.

Because education is a unifying factor, we must build it up into a symbol of unity, and we cannot achieve this if we do not have the basis, namely an education system which is open to everyone. I think it is a very difficult challenge, seen against the background of our economy and the numbers in our society. It is a difficult challenge if we see it in terms of what we must achieve by the years 2000 and 2010 in order to satisfy people. We still have a chance to silence our critics, however, if we are prepared to take dynamic steps. Therefore I want to ask today: In spite of all our shortcomings, let us be courageous and do what is right. May parental choice also be an important factor in education.

Order! The hon member’s 10 minutes have expired. Since the hon member was allocated 15 minutes, an hon Whip may rise and give him the remaining five minutes.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member the opportunity to use his remaining five minutes.

Mr Chairman, that will suffice.

Mr Chairman, the department whose Vote is being considered today can, with conviction, be called the builder of a better tomorrow, because even if an acceptable constitutional arrangement is found for this country, the preparation of the working potential of the vast majority of South Africans will be shaped in this department.

Let us not forget that according to the 1985 census the mean age of Black South Africans was 20,34 years. This has enormous implications as far as development and planning are concerned. On the shoulders of this department, I believe, rests the responsibility of determining whether or not the future South Africa will be populated by an under-educated and thus underdeveloped nation, similar to that in so many other countries in Africa, or whether it will be populated by an educated and technically advanced populace so that we can rightfully take our place as the leading powerhouse in Africa. That is our choice. There is no better way than the education and training of the teaching corps so that they, in turn, can educate tomorrow’s generations.

*For that reason I want to congratulate the hon the Minister, his deputy and the department on the announcement earlier this afternoon on the progress in education in the rural areas and on the upgrading programmes for teachers. Sir, coming from the rural areas yourself, you will know how heartbreaking it is to see how many children there get no formal education.

At a time when there is a great deal of criticism about politics in education, the actions of this department are praiseworthy, particularly when we remember that according to the 1985 census, there are no fewer than 8 104 218 out of a total of 9 million Blacks in the rural areas who have a qualification of Std 5 or less. No fewer than 4 million of these Blacks have had no scholastic training. An enormous task awaits us here.

†Allow me to sound a word of warning. Let us not educate people to become educated unemployed persons. This is a phenomenon which is affecting other communities in this country day by day. Let our education be geared to suit the requirements of the workplace.

*We must strongly emphasise career-orientated education. The reality is that the majority of our country’s inhabitants are Blacks. I want to add at once that I consider it a deficiency that I have to stand up in Parliament to speak on behalf of Black people. It would have been far better if they could have done so themselves. It goes without saying that because of their superior numbers, Black people will eventually have to hold most of the posts. This is logical. To hope like those on the ultra-right that Blacks will always only hold the lowest-paid positions is a dream which, thanks to improved Black education, is rapidly disappearing.

This afternoon I want to ask the hon the Minister how career-orientated education in general is progressing in the Black schools. How many children in schools have been involved in this? How is the development of this kind of education being ensured? As I said earlier, an enormous task rests on the shoulders of the department. At the moment we find that as regards artisans, Black people are employed mainly in the building, printing and furniture industries. At present there are only 7 000 Black apprentices compared with 52 000 from the other population groups. As regards qualified artisans, there are at present 160 000 Whites as against 12 500 Blacks. I know the hon the Minister is going to tell me that until fairly recently some of these posts were not open to Blacks. However, I believe that in spite of the backlog, tremendous pressure must be exerted so that as many people as possible will qualify as soon as possible.

In a changing world the emphasis is going to fall to an increasing extent on professional fields. Only six engineers out of a present total of 20 000 are Blacks. Not one of these Blacks is a chemical engineer. If we look at technology we have an equally sombre picture. Here we find that fewer than 300 Blacks are male technologists compared with 12 000 Whites. At present there are 320 Black general practitioners compared with 13 000 White medical doctors. This indicates what a tremendously big role education has to play in future.

As regards nurses, the picture is slightly better. At the moment there are almost 15 000 Black nurses compared with 20 000 Whites. We know that there are far more Blacks in our community. We therefore expect that even here a great deal of work must be done and that the State must provide the necessary facilities so that as many Blacks as possible are trained.

The progress which is being made by leaps and bounds in Black education is striking, particularly as regards the training of Black teachers. According to the Department of Manpower there are more than 90 000 Black teachers at the moment, compared with 67 000 Whites. Considering the need for Black teachers and Black education in general, more teachers will have to be trained. I therefore believe that we are on the eve of development in this area.

However, I also say that it is a pity that South Africa has a fragmented education system. Things would have been so much easier if this had not been the case. Hon members in this House know about the tremendous problems we have in finding posts for our trained teachers. We have a surplus of teachers whereas these people could so easily have joined in with the other population groups. We must enter the future with singleness of purpose to ensure that all South Africans can take their rightful place in the workplace. We must therefore train Black teachers so that they can train the Black children and they in turn can lead other people to a better future.

†At this stage, Sir, I want to refer specifically to the Department’s annual report. In paragraph 3.3.7 on page 33 we read:

Is that really so, Sir? To what extent have the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister had the co-operation of the parents? Are they satisfied with the degree of co-operation?

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member the opportunity to use the time he has been allocated.

Order! No, the time allocated to the hon member has expired.

Sir, we have given him more time.

Order! Is the hon member getting additional time? Very well, then the hon member for Diamant may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

†I ask again, Sir, whether the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister are satisfied with the degree of co-operation which they are receiving from the parents. Let us remember that in the South Africa in which we are seeking a peaceful tomorrow, these liaison committees, if they are functioning properly, could play an important part as a communication medium. With that in mind, I want to refer to page 43 of the annual report, on which “internal communication” is discussed. I quote from paragraph 3.6.3:

Those sentiments are very laudable, Mr Chairman. Let me ask this question, however: How many of those public relation officers are Black? One of the elements of communication is that people should, first of all, feel free to communicate. In the divided and polarised society we have in South Africa, is it so that intergroup contact is easier?

*Sir, my colleague, the hon member for Grassy Park, referred earlier to pre-primary education. In its annual report the department says that in March of last year there was a total of 137 such institutions at which 14 289 children were registered. In addition, 4 000 or more children were accommodated in special classes at 11 primary schools. Is this not perhaps too few children and should more attention not be given to this matter?

†This situation illustrates the need for the community to become involved in the education of our children to an increasing extent. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether there is a restriction on the Treasury at the moment as to how many schools the department can subsidise annually. I ask this because there were cases in which restrictions were placed on the number of new types of subsidised institutions.

*I also want to refer to the matter of school libraries. In this regard I see—according to the report of the department—that in 1986 a total of 55 000 books was issued at various primary schools. Last year more than R3 million was voted for this purpose, but in my opinion this amount was hopelessly too small.

†We should provide the necessary funds so that our children—who will inevitably, whether we like it or not, play a leading role in the future of this country—will be able to read themselves into a better and brighter future.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank you for the privilege of being able to contribute to this debate. I want to thank the hon member Mr Douw in particular for sacrificing his turn to speak in order to afford me an opportunity to take part in the debate.

†The policies embarked upon today by the Department of Education and Training, in comparison to what has gone before—and I do not mean only in the NP’s “lifetime” in Government, but in the perspective of South African history—are a radical departure from the past. When we think, for example, of last year’s education budget, we recall that some 40% of the total amount of money allocated to education went towards Black education. The progress we have made these past years is evident if we compare certain policies that started as far back as 1905—I ask hon members please not to say this is irrelevant; it is pertinent to the whole question of education in this country and our aim to get away from the past to a whole new dispensation of education— when the State decided for the first time to fund education. That was before this country became a Union. I have before me an Act called the School Board Act of 1905. In 1905 the government of the Cape colony passed an Act—incidentally, we are in part of the parliamentary building of the day—which provided for government-funded education for White children only. It is ironical to note that the party in power at that time was the Progressive Party. I am not saying they were the fathers of the existing PFP, but it is nevertheless ironical. In this regard I want to quote from section 48 of the said Act which states:

I also want to refer to section 51 which reads:

The whole question of separate education, therefore, goes way back into the history of the colonization of this country. When comparing the situation we had in the past, where the State deliberately excluded children of colour from State-subsidised education, with the situation we have today, one can see that revolutionary changes are taking place in the field of education.

Experts visiting South Africa have said that they see this country as one with components of both the First World, the developed world, and the Third World, or developing world. They say the answers to the problems of South Africa and, on a broader scale, to those of Africa, are fourfold. The first answer is education, the second is education, the third is education and the fourth is education. We cannot get away from that. This applies to education on all levels—the pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

The State is battling manfully to bridge the gap which discrimination has formed in the past. It is also paying attention to the fact that schooling for Blacks has, in the past, by and large been relegated to the churches. They have done a wonderful job, Sir—let us make no mistake about that. Mission school education has produced great men in this country, but that kind of education has served its time. The State should now play a much greater role in financing education. Farm and church schools have had their day; they must be phased out. The Department of Education and Training is doing a tremendous job in bringing this about. The department is introducing new values, standards and procedures into education at farm school level. As an hon member mentioned earlier, the participation by parents is also being seen to. Provision is being made, in terms of the law, for parental participation in the running of Black schools—not only in the cities, but also in the farm schools.

It is also important to note that people are offering alternatives to the present system of education which, to my mind, is gradually becoming an increasingly relevant system of education. We have, for example, the belief that the answer to South Africa’s educational problems— particularly those of the large majority of the population, namely the Black population—is alternative education or “people’s education”. Sir, I believe that if this were to gain a foothold in our schools—serious attempts will be made to let this happen—it is going to be disastrous for education. I am pleased to note that the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid has made the point that he believed sincerely that what was positive in alternative education should be incorporated in the curricula of the schools in South Africa. In this regard I wholeheartedly agree with him.

However, let us look at the essentials of an alternative form of education offered by a man like Mr Franklin Sonn, who edited a certain publication of Utasa’s called ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION—Vision of a Democratic Society—the whole range of education is covered in this thin publication—and ended his introduction by saying:

The phrase “indeed, all subjects taught at school” is added as a second thought. The primary thought, here, relates to the teaching of history in our schools. Sir, if this is all that “people’s education” is about, then let us get on with changing the history syllabuses in our schools. I have already challenged people who have taken history as a major subject at university to write history textbooks. If the books prove to be worthwhile, we can introduce them in the schools. However, they would not do that.

The challenge is there. Of course, history in South Africa is not merely a question of White heroes and Black barbarians. This is the oversimplified picture that history in South Africa presents to us and the outside world. Those are not the facts of history in this country. Of course we welcome efforts by people to give a more balanced view, because one cannot expect Black children to go away with the view that their parents and forbears were savage barbarians, robbers and thieves, and that the Whites were the only people who established a civilised society in this country. Everybody made a contribution. However, we must remember that history as a subject—in whichever country it is taught and written about—is closely related to groups and nations; and even in this country, where history is such a sensitive matter, the fact that it is group-related is recognised by all groups, Black and White.

I have here a little cutting, taken from the Cape Times of 16 December last year. It reports a visit by “Jeugkrag”, a group of young people, a so-called “verligte Afrikaner” youth organisation, which paid a “Day of the Vow visit to the grave of Voortrekker leader Louis Trichardt in Maputo”. Maputo is in a foreign country. Who went along with them to visit this grave? They were accompanied by members of the Frelimo youth movement—the Communist youth movement of Mozambique, a movement radically opposed to the system here in South Africa. However, they accompanied these young South Africans and it was reported in the Cape Times that these young “South Africans, and their Frelimo counterparts, will visit the memorial garden to pay tribute to the Voortrekker leader, his wife Martha, and other Voortrekkers buried there”.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired. The hon member may be allotted another five minutes by one of the Whips.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you, Sir. I am saying that history, the subject, is closely related to groups, peoples and nations, and we cannot escape that.

What is the type of education we need in this country? It is not an alternative education, not “people’s education”. In this regard it is important to note that Mr Franklin Sonn points out that “people’s education” is not the sinister education that it is made out to be. Yet, in the very next two pages of the publication edited by Mr Sonn, we find a man like Ihron Rensburg, the secretary of the National Education Crisis Committee, saying that we must note that alternative education in his programme means: “In demanding people’s education for people’s power in people’s schools we aim to shift the balance of educational power, beginning by establishing a people’s authority alongside existing State authorities.” This is Bantu education once again, but in a new guise, motivated by Marxists. We need in this country, Sir, a relevant education, an education geared to transforming South Africa’s youth into modern, industrially skilled people. We are rapidly moving towards becoming an industrial society, along the lines of Western Europe, and we need the skilled manpower at leadership level and at skilled levels of all kinds to man this new development. As other speakers have pointed out, the emphasis must be on skills and career-orientated education.

Mr Chairman, it is truly a privilege to speak after listening to the clear explanation of matters as seen by the hon member for Southern Cape. It is also a privilege and honour to take part in this relevant Vote, “Education and Training”. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister, his deputy and the officials of his department for the tour we could enjoy with them, and the insight we could receive into the problems that they have to face up to in their objective of uplifting Black education to the standard of that in the other departments.

It was pleasing to see the ardour with which the Black teaching staff have accepted the challenge of uplifting their education and elevating it to a place of honour so that the Blacks can also be proud of their education in South Africa. The total budget of the Department of Education and Training shows an increase of approximately 19%. It is also pleasing to see, from the speech of the hon the Minister, which he sent us—we are very grateful for this—that it is the Government’s objective to set equal standards for the education of all communities in South Africa.

I also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and the department as a whole on their handling of this extremely delicate and explosive situation. Let us be honest, Black education is the most explosive matter a department can deal with at this moment, because that is where the grouping is taking place. We are pleased that we could see during the past year that the large-scale boycotts and the disruption of schools was restricted to a minimum. We have heard recently about boycotts and the disruption of classes here in the Western Cape, but it looks as though things are going very well on a countrywide level. I want to thank the hon the Deputy Minister in particular, because he is not afraid to go into simmering and smouldering situations to talk to the people. He goes in and speaks to the people. Once again this is proof that communication is the best way in which to defuse situations.

Earlier in my speech I spoke about the explosiveness of the situation in education, as well as the disruption of school activities, the anarchist attacks on departmental properties, the destruction and burning of school books, etcetera. All these things gave rise to the historic establishment of “people’s education” during a forum that was held at the University of the Witwatersrand.

The hon member for Southern Cape has just had a great deal to say about that.

I want to repeat that people’s education, if it guarantees the involvement of parents in the pupils’ school activities and is an alternative which will comply with the desires, ideals and educational objectives of the broad South African community, is the answer to our problem. Everyone is seeking an alternative today, a system of education which will be implemented and will be acceptable to the general public of South Africa in the post-apartheid era.

People’s education will be accepted by this House, and I make so bold as to say that it will be accepted not only by this House, but also by all right-thinking South Africans, irrespective of race, colour, culture and ethnic grouping, as the guarantee of one equal system of education under one Minister. I foresee great problems, however, if people’s education becomes an instrument by means of which the existing order, the authority of the parent, the teacher in the classroom, the principal, the school committee and educational authorities is undermined, whereas the status of the child is elevated to that of the parent and of the teacher in the classroom. If the child is going to be used to enforce change, no right-thinking person whose head does not have to be read—to use the expression used by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture—will accept people’s education.

I believe that children’s education must lead them to maturity, as well as to that kind of citizenship which will make them true patriots in the country of their birth. We have a problem, however, viz that in Black education, the Black children see a system which is not equal to other systems of education in South Africa. I was one of those who was very interested in seeing what was being done, and I should like to tell the hon the Minister and his staff that what I saw has given me courage for the future. The challenge has been accepted, and work is being done to uplift Black education from its inferior position so as to place it on a higher level. I want to tell the hon the Minister today: Carry on with what you are doing; you are on the right course.

If all the other Government departments display the zeal I have seen in this department, I believe that we have almost found a solution to South Africa’s problems. South Africa’s problems will be solved easily by those who are eager to rectify those things that are wrong. There are many things in this country that are wrong, but I believe that they can be rectified in an acceptable and evolutionary manner. We have seen what kind of evolutionary change is taking place in Black education, and this can serve as an example to the rest of the country.

†I dare say that the education crisis which gripped the country is an integral part of a certain weakness in the South African way of life. I am afraid that upon closer examination, one will find that the deficiencies we find in the Black education system weigh heavily on Black South Africans. The core problem remains the discrimination from which flows the unequal allocation of facilities, the unequal allocation of State funds per child and the unequal pupil-teacher ratio. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Riversdal must not interrupt the hon member. The hon member for Southern Free State may proceed.

You know, Sir, people from the Cape think we Free Staters cannot speak English.

†The appointment of unqualified teachers inevitably leads to an overall inferior education system for Blacks.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Order! According to the speaker’s list, the hon member still has five minutes; he may proceed.

I thank the hon Whip. We Free Staters look after one another. [Interjections.]

†It needs to be emphasised that the refusal to bring Blacks into the central political arena … [Interjections.]

Order! We are not playing games. Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to continue his speech.

…where important decisions are being made for Blacks and about Blacks without their participation remains the bottom line which causes anger in every Black person’s heart.

Mr Chairman, when we assess the points that I have raised, we can see no way in which the crisis in Black education can be isolated from the whole political and social complexion of the present South Africa.

In conclusion I can declare without fear of contradiction that the bait of better education is very attractive. In the eyes of the Black man people’s education is seen as an educational system which will prepare him for total liberation. It will help him to be creative and to develop a critical mind. It will help him to analyse the situation he finds himself in. It will prepare him for full participation in all social, political and cultural spheres of society.

I believe that in the South Africa of tomorrow, alternative education is needed to prepare the child who will be the parent of tomorrow. However, I sincerely doubt whether people’s education will rise to the challenges and adhere to the way of life of our people in the South Africa we envisage.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to thank all hon members sincerely for their positive contributions … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Riversdal must please come to order.

I can understand why the hon member for Southern Free State is so excited. I must admit that he is almost the only Free Stater I have ever heard who can speak English that well. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not think the hon Deputy Minister can be serious.

Mr Chairman, I forgot that you also come from the Free State. I can understand the hon member’s excitement, and I want to congratulate him. He spoke English very well.

The hon member for Grassy Park made certain comments in respect of the say Blacks have in their own education. I want to say immediately that of course the hon member is correct if he says as a matter of principle that we want to promote the say of Blacks in own education as far as possible. It is also important for Blacks to get an opportunity to put their standpoints in their own educational bodies and in educational bodies in our country.

In addition it is important to note that there are Blacks who serve on the executive bodies of our universities. As far as I know, numerous Blacks serve on the councils of all four of our universities. The majority of council members at two universities are Black. They do make inputs, therefore.

In respect of the say of Blacks in statutory councils, we have made arrangements for the representation of Blacks. With regard to the self-governing territories, this also applies in the certification councils. In addition, Blacks are represented on the advisory body of the hon the Minister of National Education, the SACE. The hon member’s standpoint has merit. I want to draw his attention to the fact that our Council for Education and Training, which advises the hon the Minister in respect of educational matters, consists only of Blacks.

We want to try to make it possible for our own parents to have a democratic say in the new communication structures by means of the election of school committees, the election of chairmen, who in turn can serve on a committee of chairmen in a specific area, who can then be represented on the various regional committees of the Council for Education and Training, who, finally, can have representation on the Council of Education and Training. In this way parents can communicate with the hon the Minister from the lowest level as it were.

The standpoint put by the hon member is a completely acceptable standpoint, therefore, and we are working towards achieving that objective.

The hon member also mentioned the importance of school readiness. I should like to support him in that. It is of the utmost importance when it comes to the exceptional distinctiveness of Black education that our children be ready for school. It is true that the dropout rate can be blamed to a great extent on our children’s not being school-ready. We are addressing this matter, and I think the whole bridging period that we are trying to introduce is an indication of this.

I want to say something with reference to the capacity of our schools, because this is an indication of our progress in addressing this problem. When one looks at the growth in enrolments in our schools in the RSA, one sees that between 1980 and 1987 there has been an increase of 1,4 million—that is 42%. The number of Sub As has grown by 24%, and the number of Std 10s by 327%. This is an indication that our schools are improving their capacity.

It is also interesting to note that of the Sub As in 1969, only 6% reached Std 10 in 1980, whereas 21% of the Sub As of 1976 reached Std 10 in 1987. There was an increase from 6% to 21%. I think this is a clear indication that we are attaining success in addressing this problem.

The hon member for Mamre referred to the importance of equal educational opportunities. He was doubtful as to whether we were going to succeed in adhering to our aims and objectives, and also referred to the financial implications this holds. I think that is precisely why it is so important that education be as cost-effective as possible, in other words that we shall make it possible for ourselves to make more money available for new improvements. That is why macro-planning is so important in education, and why we have a whole series of national plans, each of which addresses a specific facet, in our department. The department has also gone further and has formulated eight strategic objectives in its strategic planning by means of which we want to try to make our education more cost-effective. In this way we hope to give substance to a clear identification of problem areas and deficiencies so that our national plans can be implemented in a co-ordinated and programmed way and in terms of priorities.

When one looks at this year’s budget, and takes into account that the Main Budget increased by approximately 10%, whereas the Education and Training budget increased by 18,9% and the budget for the provision of education in our self-governing territories by 23,1 %, it is clear that the Government is concerned about this matter, and is determined to attain the objective of equal education as soon as possible. I should also like to assure the hon member for Mamre that we shall fight for this in every possible way, because we know how important it is for our future.

The hon member for Diamant also referred once again to the importance of career-oriented education, and asked what progress was being made in this connection.

Briefly I can say that career-oriented education has been instituted at 1 547 schools, and that approximately 240 000 pupils are involved. I said a moment ago that we were implementing career-oriented education in the farm schools as well. For 1989 the department envisages pilot projects for other occupations in this connection, viz trade, art, agriculture and domestic science. I am convinced that in this connection we have set an example worth following, not only in order to meet the requirements of the country and its various communities, but especially with reference to the needs of individual children. These children must be given an opportunity to enter the future as useful and full-fledged citizens. This is of the utmost importance, and it is an aspect we shall have to address to an increasing extent in future.

The hon member also referred to adult education in the rural areas.

†In this regard I can just point out that in all residential areas adults may request that a centre for adult education be established if there is enough interest. To address this problem, the Adult Education Section has also involved the Transvaal Women’s Agricultural Union. The department offers assistance in the form of training for study leaders who wish to teach their labourers to read and write. It is essential that these women be trained in order to present the CARW programme. In 1987 some 296 women were trained to offer this course to about 4 000 farm labourers. The valuable contribution of the Urban Foundation in this regard must also be mentioned.

*The hon member also referred to the building of new schools. In this connection we have a national plan for physical facilities, and by means of careful scientific and demographic analyses of each residential area, the priorities and needs of such areas are determined. The question of the number of schools that are built annually depends, of course, on the funds available, since we do not have unlimited funds at our disposal. Approximately 15% of the total budget is utilised for this purpose, however. If we consider the general planning of the department, our programme is still going according to plan at this stage, and I am sure that ultimately we shall attain our objectives.

†The hon member for Southern Cape also made a very valuable contribution here today. It is the first time that he has participated in this discussion as MP for his constituency. It was pleasant to listen to him. I think the importance of relevant education cannot be outlined enough. It is also very important that we deal with this matter in a very delicate way.

*The hon member for Southern Free State also referred to this.

†The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid referred to this matter quite recently in a speech delivered at the Sebokeng Teachers’ College and I think what was said there is of the utmost importance. We all agree that syllabi should be more relevant to the lives of our pupils and the future that lies ahead of them. It is also important that Black educationists be enabled and encouraged to make a direct contribution to the formulation of syllabi. Sensitive subjects like history, religious instruction and literature, which the hon member also referred to, are of particular importance. We welcome the views and wisdom of Black people, particularly academics, professional people and parents who are knowledgeable about these matters.

I think the aim should be that the syllabi for these subjects provide a broader spectrum of points of view and a greater variety of choice.

On the other hand, I think the hon member is correct in saying that there are also people who are uninformed and who come along with a hysterical clamour—in the name of the so-called “people’s education”—through which they want to destroy not only the education system but also the very fabric of our society. I underline the fact that education must be relevant, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon member’s statement that people who come along with the philosophy of using education for revolutionary purposes have nothing to contribute to the revision of any system of education.

*In addition, as the hon member for Southern Free State said, this can only have terribly detrimental consequences for the education of our children.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister to comment on an allegation in the SA Institute for Race Relations’ document, Update, dated 10 March 1988? On page 5 it says:

What is the reaction of the hon the Deputy Minister to that?

Sir, the question, therefore, is whether children are turned away from schools because the necessary facilities are not available. I cannot think of any incidents of this nature anywhere in the country in which pupils are turned away per se as a result of a lack of facilities. One has to be careful in formulating a statement of this kind.

In the Western Cape, for example, we had a situation in which a certain number of pupils could not be accommodated. Naturally it is very important that there be proper planning in respect of the provision of facilities for pupils. That is why we strongly emphasised the fact that pupils had to register in the Western Cape. After all, we have to have enough teachers, as well as the necessary stationery and so on, to accommodate the number of children. When, therefore, the children do not come to school on the specified dates, the situation really becomes untenable and not all the children can be accommodated. That was the case in the Western Cape. After parents had been given numerous opportunities to register their children, and some of them had still neglected to do so, a number of children could not be accommodated. After all, one can no longer accommodate pupils when a school year has progressed too far.

I think that this is the kind of case the document was referring to. Our point of departure, however, is that we are concerned about the education of every child. As far as possible we want to ensure that every child gets the opportunities to which he can justifiably lay claim to prepare himself for a future in our country.

I hope that I have reacted to all the contributions made by hon members. I also want to thank the hon member for Southern Free State, who spoke English so well today, for his friendly remarks about the work the department does. He also referred to the importance of communication. I do not think we can emphasise that enough. I have no doubt that we shall not be able to build a future in South Africa unless we can get our people together to communicate. Communication does not only involve talking; communication also involves listening to people.

The opportunity that I have had to communicate with others during my involvement in Black education so far has given me hope for the future of our country and all its people. It has made me aware of the enormous degree of goodwill that exists among all the people of our country. That is why I believe we should tell all South Africa’s people to go out of their way to communicate and to listen to one another, because that will create greater hope of a wonderful future for all the people in our country.

Mr Chairman, I want to make a few introductory remarks of a more personal nature about this Vote. Before I express my appreciation to the officials of my department, permit me a few words of gratitude addressed to my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Education. I am sure that hon members will agree with me that I am indeed a fortunate Minister to have a deputy of this calibre, a man who can carry so many of my responsibilities, something which is clearly evident from the way in which he dealt with the debate and from his attitude. I think it is proof of the quality and of the respect he enjoys that so far no one has told him to get cracking and work himself out of a job. [Interjections.] I think that everyone is satisfied that he is doing his job. [Interjections.]

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing a word of thanks to the officials of the Department of Development Aid—in particular the Director-General and his two deputies—for the example they set, because there is simply no question of normal office hours in this department. One often has to work over weekends, late into the night and far from home, and the selfless dedication of officials to this job is something that always strikes one when one is dealing with the officials of this department at head office or at the decentralised regional level. On this occasion I should like to express my utmost appreciation for that fact.

I also want to refer to the role played by the Commissioners-General as Government representatives in the self-governing areas, and I want to thank them very sincerely. They actually facilitate the promotion of two-way communication by interpreting the South African Government’s standpoints to the governments of the self-governing territories and by interpreting the sentiments expressed by the self-governing territories for the South African Government.

†One of my very exciting experiences of communication is the meetings that I have from time to time with the chief ministers, their colleagues and their cabinets, and I would also, at this stage, like to pay tribute to the contribution they are making to good government in this country, in their capacity as authorities responsible for the government in specific regions of the country. I would also like to refer to the role hon members of this House have been playing as members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid. They have played an important role indeed, and I should like to thank them for it.

*By way of general background, at the beginning of the debate I should just like to sketch the budgetary priority given to the funding of development in the self-governing territories. Hon members are aware of the fact that as a whole the Main Budget this year has increased by 10,7%, compared with last year’s revised estimates. Overall State expenditure this year has therefore been limited to a level lower than the inflation rate. It is especially important to point out that the Development Aid Vote still enjoys a high priority—if one did one’s arithmetic one would probably find that it enjoyed the highest priority of all Votes in the Government’s overall planning—with its increase of R1 018 billion, an increase of 33,6% in comparison with last year’s figure.

The major portion of this increase for the department’s Vote is for assistance to the six self-governing territories, for which there is an increase of R949 million or 38,1%. In the year in which the Budget has, for the first time in many years, been such a disciplined budget that in overall terms it has not exceeded the inflation rate, this is singular proof of the seriousness with which the Government views development in the self-governing territories which are, in many respects, still underdeveloped areas.

It is, in fact, true that not all additional funds mean additional money for new or extended services this year. This increase is largely the result of the carry-through effect of expenditure to which we committed ourselves last year, for example increases in salaries and in social pensions and also authorised overdrafts for urgent additional expenditure, which has to be carried through this year. This increase in the Development Aid budget, particularly for the self-governing territories, nevertheless represents the largest increase for any Vote. Other departments may also have to finance carry-through costs for which commitments were made during the previous years. They are doing so, however, with less favourable increases than those which have been granted to Development Aid this year.

I therefore want to emphasise in advance the high priority granted to this aspect in the Government’s planning and administration, in spite of all the problems, backlogs and shortcomings that still exist. In this spirit I want to tell hon members of this House that it is really an exciting experience to be involved in this department and to help address the problems we are confronted with, with experts and leaders from the respective self-governing territories, and especially to be involved in the improvement of the situation, as well as the progress being made and the elimination of the backlogs and shortcomings which existed in the past.

Provisionally I should like to content myself with those few remarks. In my reply I shall comment further on the debate.

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin by associating myself with the appreciation which the hon the Minister conveyed to the officials and more specifically the Director-General and his deputies, particularly for the way in which, during the past three years, they have provided us with the necessary information when we were serving on the standing committee and frequently had to deal with very difficult decisions. The department was very helpful and quite indispensable.

At the outset I want to say that this year the department boasts with what is probably the most impressive and stylish annual report of all the departments. If one considers the price of this annual report—locally R42,60 and abroad R53,25—it is quite certain that it must have cost a few thousand rand to print.

In the annual report the Director-General singled out two important highlights of the department during the past financial year, and these were the South African Government’s decision to transfer ownership of land in its area of jurisdiction to the governments of the self-governing territories. He went on to mention that the department had made progress in implementing this policy. In less than a year the Department of Development Aid had transferred approximately 4,2 million hectares of land in ownership to the self-governing states, with the authority to deal with most of the land affairs themselves in future. Secondly the Director-General mentioned that approximately 43 towns previously maintained by the Department of Development Aid had been transferred during the past financial year, in terms of a Government resolution, to KaNgwane, Gazankulu and KwaZulu. However it is very important—the Director-General touched on this matter as well—that the department should in future continue to provide these governments with assistance, advice and training in order to ensure effective administration.

As regards the transfer of ownership to self-governing states, I should like to say that I welcome this step. However, I should like to know from the hon the Minister what progress has been made with the transfer of ownership to individual landowners in the national states.

I was particularly impressed with the agricultural products and with the scientific way in which fanning was being practised in some of the national states under the direction of the Department of Development Aid, private companies as well as the South African Development Trust Corporation. In the agricultural sphere in particular I think this department is doing valuable work. I can testify that in some of the national states, fanning is being practised more scientifically than in large areas of so-called White South Africa.

It was also gratifying that the Director-General mentioned in his survey that approximately 45 private township developers were at present engaged in the provision of housing in the self-governing states. It can never be overemphasised that the provision of housing is imperative for stability, development and progress.

On 5 May 1988 the hon the Minister said in his introductory speech in the House of Assembly:

The Director-General also broached this point when he stated on page 9 of the annual report:

These two statements prove that South Africa has come a long way since Act 46 of 1959, the Promotion of Self-Government Act, was piloted through the House of Assembly by Dr Verwoerd. At the time he said the following:

We do not hear very much about this type of balkanization of South Africa any more. The initial intention was to balkanize South Africa to such an extent that the so-called Black peril or Black domination or a Black majority would be prevented in a White South Africa. This also had to lend a kind of morality to separate development or apartheid, which did not work in any case. It seems to me that a more realistic approach is now being adopted in this department.

Although history took a different course to the one foreseen by Dr H F Verwoerd, the infrastructural development on a decentralised basis, as well as the economic and agricultural development which was part and parcel of the homeland policy, could serve as an important foundation to the establishment of a federal form of government in South Africa.

I want to come now to the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. In spite of all the positive economic and infrastructural development which ensued from the establishment of the ten national states, of which four became independent, the remaining six national states remain part of the South African Government’s future constitutional problems. I want to tell the hon the Minister today that I think it is time the constitutional proposals of both the Buthelezi Commission and the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba were reconsidered. A decentralised legislative and executive authority in Natal is feasible for various reasons. I want to mention a few of these reasons. The retention of Natal is not imperative for the retention of White power in South Africa, because the Whites in that province are by far in the minority, and a large percentage of them are liberal English-speaking people. The establishment of a regional authority in Natal will afford South Africa’s largest Black cultural group, the Zulus, who number 6 million, as well as South Africa’s largest political party, Inkatha, which can lay claim to more than one million enrolled members, a political say on the highest legislative and executive authority within the regional authority of Kwa-Natal.

The result of such an option would therefore be an economically viable state with a primarily homogeneous Black cultural group, and White, Indian and Coloured minorities, a kind of Southern African Kenya. This option could pave the way for South Africa and could serve as a model for the rest of the country in order to move towards an ultimate federal republic.

Now that I have said all these positive things, I should like to return to the whole issue of consolidation. It remains a very controversial aspect of the activities of this department. In this connection I want to refer in particular to the Moutse/KwaNdebele/Lebowa debacle. The Appeal Court judgement on 29 March 1988 is ironic in many respects in that the Government has a policy of “minority groups” and “cultural groups” in this country. With the consolidation of KwaNdebele, and the inclusion of Moutse in KwaNdebele, the Government dismantled its own policy of minority groups and entirely ignored its own policy of cultural groups.

The judgment by Mr Justice Grosskopf in the Appeal Court finding is therefore rather ironic. The initial objective with the national states was that they should make provision for the establishment of ethnic-national governments within a culturally homogeneous state dispensation—that is to say, the traditional classic Verwoerdian concept. Consequently the appeal judge went contrary to the State’s motivation by finding that Moutse, from a geographic and administrative point of view, could easily be incorporated in KwaNdebele.

A point which did not emerge all that prominently in the court case was the question of KwaNdebele, which is in fact merely a small …

Order! I regret having to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Thank you very much, Sir.

A fact which did not emerge prominently in the court case, or in the debacle proceeding it, was that the actual intention of the addition of Moutse to KwaNdebele was to make KwaNdebele more viable and respectable so as to pave the way to independence. The effect of this Appeal Court judgement is therefore that the hon the State President exceeded his powers when on 1 January 1986, by way of a proclamation, he incorporated approximately 120 000 people—primarily North Sothos—into a national state of South Ndebeles. After the incorporation in 1986 approximately 150 people lost their lives in the cruelest way imaginable. This was unnecessary, and happened as a result of unilateral decision-making by the State. The inhabitants of the territory were not consulted in this matter.

One of the first projects which was initiated after Moutse had been incorporated into KwaNdebele was the building of a police station. After the Appeal Court decision they had to halt the project. Sir, I want to put it to the hon the Minister that I know that the Moutse incident is a great embarrassment to the Government. However, I hope that they will heed the Appeal Court decision and that Moutse will remain part of South Africa.

A further point I want to make in this connection is that the pro-Lebowa people and those who are entirely opposed to incorporation in any national state became amalgamated during the course of the entire action against the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele. If the intention now is to incorporate Moutse into Lebowa, that would pave the way for new conflict in this territory.

I also want to point out to the hon the Minister that the LP, during its most recent National Executive Committee meeting, expressed its disapproval in a strongly worded motion to any further attempts to incorporate Moutse into KwaNdebele. I really want to express the hope that this Appeal Court decision will be obeyed.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say at the very outset that I share the sentiments expressed here by the hon member Mr Lockey in the introduction to his speech. I also want to pay tribute to the hon the Minister and his department for the wonderful annual report they have published. I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the copy of the speech which he made in the House of Assembly and which he sent to us. It is gratifying to note the steps being taken to ensure that the misspending of funds does not occur again. One is grateful for the arrangements which have been made, as set out on pages 7, 8, 9 and 10, if I am not mistaken. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the steps he has taken in that connection.

In the short time available to me I am going to devote my speech to the town of Botshabelo near Bloemfontein in the Central Free State. Botshabelo has a population of between 350 000 and 500 000. Different statistics are given. Some venture to say that there are almost 700 000 people in Botshabelo. I shall keep to a very conservative estimate and say there are between 350 000 and 500 000 people there.

On 1 December 1987 Botshabelo was incorporated in Qwaqwa—against the will of those inhabitants. I can remember a radio discussion that was held—it was actually a debate—by a certain Mr Pepenene and the head of the Qwaqwa government, Chief Mopedi. Those of us who understand a little Sotho clearly understood the sentiments expressed by Pepenene. We also appreciate the manner in which he put his case. I can tell hon members that at the end of the debate even Chief Mopedi conceded that Pepenene’s case had merit. Notwithstanding all that, Botshabelo was incorporated in Qwaqwa, and since 1 December nothing has happened. No development has taken place; everything has come to a standstill. The developers are afraid they will not be paid for the services they are rendering. The people do not know whether they are coming or going, and they do not know what their status is going to be in the territory now that it has been incorporated into Qwaqwa. Conditions there, which one becomes aware of when one goes into the heart of the area—I am not speaking about the H-bloc and other blocs which present such an attractive picture, but of the A-bloc and the B-bloc—are actually slum conditions. The conditions there are unhygienic, and the area is situated very close to Bloemfontein. These conditions could give rise to epidemics, because either there is no infrastructure or the infrastructure is very poor. What is more, there has been large-scale unemployment over the past eight months.

Robbery and theft are an everyday occurrence. At night the people who have settled in that area are terror-stricken at the thought of what might happen. In a crisis, or when one is racked by hunger pains, one often does things one would not otherwise do. I want to focus the hon the Minister’s attention on these and similar problems in that community. The people in Botshabelo do not know where they stand, and it is very important for us to win their confidence. It is important, if we believe that we have done the right thing there, for those people to be shown that it was in their own interests and that under an own homeland government they are better off than they would have been if they had been under the control of the Bloemfontein Regional Services Council.

There are not only Sotho-speaking people in that area. Botshabelo means “sanctuary”, and many people, apart from Black people, have gone to settle there. For example, there are Taiwanese who are establishing factories in the area, but even the establishment of the factories is not proceeding as efficiently as it used to. It is as if something is holding the people back because they do not actually know what the future holds for that area. I want to ask the hon the Minister to send a clear message to the people of Botshabelo today—and also to prospective industrialists and developers who want to establish themselves there—that the area is still a source of livelihood for prospective developers. That could once again supply work to other people in the area. As a result of the stagnation which is overtaking the area, there is large-scale unemployment, which leads to all kinds of other problems.

I also want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister about giving attention to the large-scale housing crisis in Botshabelo. The housing crisis can only be alleviated if we permit developers access to the area. We shall have to give the developers the assurance, however, that they will recover the money they plough into Botshabelo. I think that we should give the green light to developers who are ready and willing to go to Botshabelo so that they can, in particular, start on the construction of subeconomic houses. I am talking about houses of up to R7 000. The houses must be built, and I want to ask the hon the Minister very nicely to abandon self-help schemes. Those are good schemes, but only in certain places. This will not work in Botshabelo, however, because those people have to get up at the crack of dawn and they only return home late at night. Many of them work on the mines in Welkom and some even work over weekends, so that Sundays are the only days they have for their families. They cannot build houses then. We must build the houses and sell them to those who can afford them. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, my sincere thanks for a second opportunity to participate in the debate today.

The time has indeed come to involve our Black people, who have no political rights, in the highest decision-making process. It has become vital for the hon the Minister to give dynamic momentum to the reform programme and to tackle it with renewed zeal. The editor of the Sunday Times, Mr Tertius Myburgh, wrote the following in the issue of 8 May 1988—and I quote:

The Afrikaans newspapers conveyed the same message over the past weekend. We hope and trust that the hon the State President is going to accelerate the reform process. This can only be done if we succeed in conducting effective negotiations and discussions with the Black people. We believe that the hon the Minister has an important part to play in steering the political ship through the doldrums. For this reason we ask for new momentum to be given to the reform process. It is my considered opinion that the hon the Minister can play a major part in achieving this. Responsible action could expedite our search for solutions. At this stage we must urgently accelerate the process of finding a solution to the problem of Black representation in the decision-making process.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will understand that we are engaged here in a matter affecting a large number of people. Just before I resumed my seat a short while ago, I said that we should give the developers who were interested in developing Botshabelo an opportunity to do so. We must forget about self-help schemes in Botshabelo. In the interim, while there is such large-scale unemployment in the area, we could usefully employ those people by tackling certain projects. At the same time we could build up the infrastructure of Botshabelo. We could employ people on the construction of roads, the laying of water-pipes and the construction of sewerage systems, for example. If we were to tackle such a project, we would eliminate the unemployment problem experienced there to a great extent. I also believe that by providing better houses, we could do away with the ugly hovels in the area. They do not do justice to the wonderful view one has when one travels in the direction of Thaba Nchu. I think we could uplift Botshabelo. We could get to work and build a city which would prove a drawcard to people from far and wide. At the moment Botshabelo is a haven for people from far and wide. I have already said that people of various races and cultural groupings have settled there. Let us not begrudge those people the right to work there, and let us provide the necessary infrastructure there so that those people can develop and build up a beautiful town which would be a credit to the Central Free State. Let people say that we have forgotten how to play rugby, but let us at least show the Free Staters that we have lovely places that can also prove to be a drawcard for tourists.

Not long ago a VIP was specially invited from America to have a look at Botshabelo, amongst other places. He did not see the lovely part of Botshabelo. He was shown only the ugly parts. They will invite other people, and those people will come again, merely to be given a stick with which to give South Africa an even more severe beating. Let us get rid of that stick. Let us develop those areas—not only Botshabelo, but all other areas where the Blacks are grouped together. Let us develop those areas and build decent houses for those people. If one has a roof over one’s head, one is proud of what one owns. Everyone is proud of what he owns, and if one has a roof over one’s head and a job, we have gone halfway towards solving South Africa’s problems. Let us work together to build up a beautiful South Africa; let us build up Botshabelo so that it can prove to be a true refuge for everyone.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members sincerely for their contributions to this debate and for their very positive proposals. As I said at the beginning, I really regard this department’s task as an exciting challenge, a challenge full of interesting possibilities, from which one can derive a great deal of job satisfaction, because one is dealing with people who want to make progress and who want to co-operate, and one therefore finds oneself in a situation which in fact produces results.

I want to take hon members’ comments one by one, and reply to them briefly. I want to begin with the hon member Mr Lockey, who referred to the department’s annual report. Incidentally, the cost involved in the annual report of this department was exactly the same as the cost involved in the annual report of the Department of Education and Training. Fewer copies were printed in this case, so that the total amount was the same as that of the annual report of the Department of Education and Training. I think the Department of Development Aid justifiably felt that its annual reports had been very modest in the past. My objection was that the annual reports of the past two years were bound in such a way that they very soon fell apart. I think it was a very good thing for the department to tone up its annual report and give it a glossy appearance. Hon members will realise that the Blacks are sensitive about the fact that things concerning their affairs are presented in an inferior way and with less prestige than matters with reference to other groups. Consequently there is no reason to find any fault with the durable appearance of this annual report. With good planning, I think it was kept within financial limits.

The hon member also asked about the progress that was being made in allocating individual property rights in the self-governing areas and the trust areas.

With reference to towns, people get right of ownership of their plots and therefore also the houses on the plots by way of the title deed system, 99-year leasehold or ordinary registered freehold title. Roughly speaking, home-owners have already obtained right of ownership of more than 100 000 sites. With regard to rural areas or farming units, where people are established as individual commercial farmers, the system was commenced a few years ago on the basis that the farmers are placed there on a tenant basis at first. In this way the successful ones can be distinguished from those who are less successful. Later—provision is being made for this and the department is phasing it in—the necessary loan facilities for agricultural financing are provided so that the farmer can buy his land. I want to assure the hon member that the department regards the question of right of ownership as very important and that we want to implement it decisively.

Of course, we are in a difficult situation when it is a matter of common land which belongs to a tribe or a community as a whole, and not to an individual. In this case one cannot introduce individual right of ownership unless one has the co-operation of the community in question. Most tribes are traditionally opposed to individual right of ownership and at most grant right of use of the land to specific individuals. Breakthroughs have also been made in this respect, however, in that certain tribal heads, in KaNgwane for example, have approached the department to work out schemes in terms of which individual right of ownership can be granted without doing away with the general authority of the tribe over the relevant area, in a political and general administrative sense. We can attain success by doing that.

The hon member also broached two matters which actually fall under the constitutional sphere. As the Minister of Education and Development Aid I do not deal with constitutional matters and am not really the right person to reply to him. He made interesting comments about an own regional authority in the Natal area. It is my opinion that this kind of possibility should be placed on the table in the proposed national forum—whether it is going to be called a national council or an indaba or whatever— where it can be negotiated and discussed by the respective leaders. I hope that this will also commence soon, so that one can consider such proposals seriously and come to decisions.

The hon member also referred to another constitutional matter, viz the position of Moutse. This matter also falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I also want to point out that the hon the State President indicated that he was giving the Chief Minister of Lebowa an opportunity to come and speak to him about this matter. Consequently I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say anything about it at this stage.

I do want to say something with reference to the hon member’s statement that the Government’s decision to incorporate Moutse was a unilateral one. I want to point out that over a period of six or seven years, the hon the State President took every possible step to reach a negotiated solution about the future of Moutse which was being disputed by KwaNdebele and Lebowa. He established all kinds of possibilities for negotiation; he even took the lead at negotiations and he nominated a special negotiator in the person of Dr Piet Rautenbach, a former chairman of the Commission for Administration, to assist in this matter. Ultimately none of these negotiation attempts were successful, and a deadlock was reached.

The hon the State President then took a decision with the Cabinet to incorporate that area. As hon members know, this decision was based on administrative and planning considerations in particular.

I must add that a very important consideration was the practical reality in both Lebowa and KwaNdebele that the two areas are not homogeneous areas in a purely ethnical sense, but that many Northern and Southern Ndebeles live peacefully in Lebowa, whereas many people of Pedi descent live peacefully in KwaNdebele.

It was thought at the time that such a decision would be practicable. I want to make these few remarks with reference to the hon member’s statement that a unilateral decision was taken, in order to put matters in perspective.

The hon member for Grassy Park appealed for an intensification of the momentum for reform, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think the latest indications given by the State President recently of the direction in which one should move, promise positive progress in this connection. I want to assure him that as a member of the hon the State President’s team, I regard it as a privilege to do everything possible to effect positive reform. We admit that at the moment the Blacks who live outside the self-governing territories, and even those in the Black areas, do not have a real say in decision-making at central Government level on matters that are important to them. It is the Government’s declared intention to give the Black communities a say in central decision-making, both in the executive and legislative spheres, so that they can have a real say and can share in political power when decisions that affect them are at issue.

The hon member for Southern Free State spoke enthusiastically, and I am very pleased that he did not put me in an embarrassing position by using difficult English words. He made a fine contribution. A contribution of that nature, which is directed at a certain area by a man who knows the situation and who deals with the practical realities there, is very valuable in a debate of this kind. I agree with the hon member that the best answer to the doubt the residents of Botshabelo may have about the future is to show them that the Government is proceeding with development, so as to create and develop confidence among them regarding the future of Botshabelo, also since it is now part of Qwaqwa. That is the best answer. It does show them that things are happening and that progress is being made.

The hon member mentioned quite a few things in connection with which I think we should make use of his knowledge. I am going to ask my Director-General, if the hon member agrees, to contact him so that he can pay the area a visit with senior officials of the department and can show us things. Perhaps we could also show him a few things which might give him a better understanding of what the department is doing. He can definitely help us by pointing out some of the problems, and we should like to make use of his knowledge.

The hon member also said that allegedly Botshabelo was incorporated against the will of the majority of the residents. I should like to remind hon members of the historic background in this connection. Botshabelo originally came into being on a piece of land which President Mangope ceded from the consolidation land, the promised land, which was Bophuthatswana’s share in the Thaba Nchu area, to provide an alternative place in which dissatisfied Southern Sothos, who lived in this area, could live. Subsequently large numbers of Southern Sothos in particular spontaneously flocked to Botshabelo. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Riversdal wants to say something, he must return to his seat and do it from there. The hon the Minister may proceed.

In the discussions between the South African Government, President Mangope and the Chief Minister of Qwaqwa, a clear agreement was reached that this area would be incorporated into Qwaqwa. This was made known, and everyone who went to settle there in due course was aware of this. Even if some of them were not eager to be incorporated, this was a reality that they should have accepted when they settled there. It would not have been appropriate for the South African Government to go back on the word it had given the Qwaqwa government that that area would be incorporated into Qwaqwa after development.

The hon member also said that no development had taken place there since December. I really want to question that. The various Government institutions that are working there are the same ones that were there before the incorporation. An agreement was concluded between the governments of Qwaqwa and the RSA that for the time being those institutions would continue to do the work on an agency basis. As far as the Government is responsible for this, therefore, that development is still taking place.

I think that any possible degree of hesitation that has come into existence among certain developers is of a temporary nature. Already various developers are complaining that insufficient raw land is being allocated to them to develop plots with a view to building houses. It is an interesting fact that in Botshabelo in particular, the homeowners are choosing to use these self-help building loans which are being made available, to get developers to build for them instead of building themselves. The developers then help them to obtain additional financing over and above the R5 000 which is available in terms of the self-help building loan. I understand that the firm Bester Builders is erecting approximately 1 000 houses in Botshabelo at the moment with the aid of these basic R5 000 self-help building loans. The same pattern is developing in Soshanguve. When an owner gets a loan, he himself can decide whether he wants to build his home himself over weekends—or when it suits him—and whether he is going to get a developer, if necessary using additional financing, to do it for him.

An important principle in the approach followed by the Government, viz that it is making financing available and that the home-owner himself has to decide on the building of his home, is that everyone has to exercise his choice according to his means. In the past one standard kind of house was built for everyone, irrespective of whether the person was rich, average or poor. In terms of the new system, this choice is left to the owner. Hon members will know that in many areas a simple kaya, an informal form of housing, is built as soon as a person has obtained a plot. During the course of time he improves his position, and as a self-builder he obtains additional funds by getting a loan from the department, the trust or his employer, for example. Slowly he begins to improve his home and in due course the initial simple kaya is transformed into a proper house, according to the means and choice of the landowner and home-owner.

The hon member referred to slum conditions. I agree with him; I am concerned about the conditions myself. They are the breeding ground of great iniquities. Two years ago there was wholesale squatting in backyards. At that stage we accelerated the development of new plots and made the basic facilities available so that the backyard-squatters, who often had to pay the owners very high rents, could be placed in a position in which they could erect homes on their own plots. I think that approximately 19 000 people in Botshabelo were resettled on their own plots with their full co-operation within a period of approximately four to five months.

The hon member also made a very important point in connection with unemployment. He is correct. Unemployment in Botshabelo is a serious problem. In fact, I think unemployment is a general problem in the Free State. The progress of industries in Botshabelo is a high priority, however. As the hon member requested, I want to give the assurance today that the promotion of industries in Botshabelo, as in other areas, for example in Industriqwa—the new industrial town near Harrismith—and Phuthaditjhaba, is receiving high priority. This remains our main objective in the development of those areas, because industrial development is a great success, and because Taiwan, Hong Kong and other places in the East are interested and therefore are investing, and this is on the increase, and also because the cost per employment opportunity created in Botshabelo is relatively low in comparison with the creation of employment opportunities in other parts of the country.

I should like to mention one point with reference to the hon member’s enthusiasm in saying that we should develop Botshabelo, which is rather a drab town at the moment, into a beautiful place. In co-operation with representatives from the Qwaqwa government, the department has completed the planning of two pleasure resorts. The one will be built in Botshabelo itself, where the stream flows through the town. A beautiful pleasure resort and picnic plot with communal facilities is envisaged here. The Free State administration also intends developing a pleasure resort for the residents of Botshabelo near the Rusfontein Dam.

I really hope that despite the financial problems, we shall find it possible to accelerate the development of these pleasure resorts. I am aware that as the Black population progresses and their socio-economic position is improved, the people in the Black communities have a need for pleasure resorts, and that we have provided far too few of these for them. Here at Botshabelo I think we have an example of how steps have been taken and planning has been completed, and I hope that the building of attractive recreational and open-air facilities in Botshabelo and the adjacent Rusfontein Dam will commence soon.

Sir, I should like to confine myself to that, and once again express appreciation to hon members for their support and for the comments they made.

Permit me just to say that the success attained by the department in the past few years in connection with agricultural development and establishment—a matter that the hon member Mr Lockey rightly emphasised at the beginning of his speech—is something which can perhaps be mentioned in broad outline again. Since the beginning of the eighties, 1 500 full-time Black commercial farmers have been settled on an economic basis on 72 000 ha of land in trust and self-governing areas. It is an entirely new breakthrough for the Blacks to have become involved in the farming industry as commercial entrepreneurs.

It is well-known that the Black sugar farmers, especially in KwaZulu, have attained large-scale success, particularly with the aid of financing they have received from the South Africa Sugar Association. In the case of KwaZulu, 21 500 farmers have been settled on 35 000 ha, and two years ago their total turnover per season with regard to the cultivation of sugar was R26 million.

Hon members also know about the 157 farmers who have been settled in the Makatini Flats development, where 2 700 ha was placed under irrigation, and at the moment we are developing a further 850 ha. The investment in the entire development on the Makatini Flats already amounts to over R35 million, and the irrigation funds paid by the farmers there are paid on an economic basis. The large-scale development is taking place at the expense of the State, but the distribution of the irrigation network is done on an economic basis and the real running costs are successfully recouped from the farmers involved.

Apart from this establishment of Black commercial farmers, I should like to point out another matter which has great value in the sphere of upliftment. That is the establishment, particularly under the leadership of women, of small vegetable gardens in tribal areas and community areas. I think few people know that already no fewer than 600 such projects have been launched in the self-governing areas in co-operation with tribes or communities, where in many cases there was only barren land in the past; that 42 000 families are involved in these vegetable gardens; that those vegetable gardens not only provide an extra income, but also improve diet and health since there is a better variety of food, and also make an important contribution to community development.

These things do not just happen, and I want to point out that before this can take place, the Department of Development Aid makes surveys of the resources and studies the potential of the agricultural possibilities of the various areas. During the past financial year, no less than 205 000 ha was covered by a survey of this kind. The largest area was that of the Upper Tugela location which creates an extensive problem in connection with the silting up of the Tugela River, and where the co-operation of the tribes there was successfully obtained. A further 650 000 is being incorporated into the planning, of which 290 000 ha will be dealt with this year with the object of making further resource surveys and potential studies. Once this has been done, further agricultural planning and establishment can take place.

On behalf of this House—I am sure I have hon members’ support in this regard—I should like to express my appreciation to the department for this great variety of new initiatives through which concrete, practical success is being attained. This is not only important economically, but it also improves the communities’ quality of life in respect of agricultural establishment and development.

I should like to confine myself to that, Sir, and once again express my appreciation to hon members for their contributions and support.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, this Bill intends to amend certain schedules to the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, No 2 of 1980, hereinafter referred to as the principal Act, by inserting further land definitions.

Section 1 of the principal Act provides that the State President may from time to time, by way of proclamation in the Gazette, transfer land, as defined in the schedules to the principal Act, to particular sovereign and independent states. Land thus transferred ceases to be part of the Republic of South Africa and becomes part of the state to which it has been transferred.

Particulars of the additions to the various schedules to the principal Act appear in the memorandum on the objects of the Bill, and I shall consequently be brief in dealing with these additions.

Schedule 2 to the principal Act describes certain areas which have been or are to be added to Bophuthatswana. The addition of these areas to Bophuthatswana gives effect to approved consolidation proposals and includes land which, because of its location—in most cases situated just beyond a railway line or a road which is generally considered to be the boundary—can better become part of the territory of Bophuthatswana.

The addition to the descriptions of land in Schedule 3 to the principal Act—this concerns land which may become part of Venda—regulates the implementation of a single outstanding aspect concerning certain land in the Bandelierkop-Soekmekaar region, following the announcement on 2 September 1985 with regard to the final consolidation of Venda.

The relevant portions of the farm Rietvlei were initially purchased, together with other farms in the Soekmekaar area, as compensatory land for the so-called Kutama-Senthimula area which, according to the 1973 consolidation decisions, had to be deproclaimed. After the independence of Venda, however, it was decided that the inhabitants of the Kutama-Senthimula area would no longer be resettled and that the area would remain detached Venda territory.

The compensatory land in the Soekmekaar area, which amounted to 20 000 hectares, was deproclaimed again in the meantime and transferred to the State. The relevant portions of the farm Rietvlei, to which the clause refers, comprise approximately 1 800 hectares. These portions are so situated that no practical purpose would be served by retaining it as part of the Republic of South Africa, because they link up topographically with the territory of Venda.

Thirdly, the amendment of the descriptions of land which may become part of Ciskei are dealt with in Schedule 4 to the principal Act. This gives effect to land exchange agreements between the Republic of South Africa and the Ciskei Government. Topographically, certain areas are so situated that they could best be utilised by Ciskei.

The Yellowwoods Station area, for instance, which is mentioned in clause 3 (b) (iii), is situated outside Ciskei but adjacent to the seat of the government, Bisho. The properties concerned— there is one exception—have already been acquired by the South African Development Trust. The owners insisted that this happen since they were dependent upon an access road passing through Bisho. This road virtually cut them off from their own hinterland. The Government of Ciskei also requested that that area be incorporated into Ciskei. Organized agriculture and the city council of King William’s Town both made representations that this area be purchased with a view to incorporation into Ciskei.

It was agreed with Ciskei that the Yellowwoods Station area, to which I have just referred and which extends over approximately 210 hectares, would be incorporated into Ciskei subject to the condition that Ciskei pass legislation to transfer to the Republic of South Africa two portions of the Mdantsane district extending across the East London-King William’s Town tarred road. This would form a much better boundary.

The Peelton area, which is mentioned in clause 3 (b) (iv), forms part of the Peelton Tribal Area, the greater part of which falls within the area of jurisdiction of Ciskei. The portion of the Peelton area east of the Kei Road-Berlin railway line extends over approximately 1 750 hectares and was, at the time of the independence of Ciskei, not included in Ciskei’s area of jurisdiction because the relevant portion of the Peelton Tribal Area was to be deproclaimed in terms of the 1972 consolidation decisions, together with areas such as Mgwali, Wartburg, Goshen, Kwelera, Mooiplaas and Newlands. As is known, the Republic of South Africa had decided that the inhabitants of all these areas would no longer be resettled and that the areas would remain Black settlements.

Ciskei meanwhile requested the Republic of South Africa that the Peelton area be incorporated since it had formed part of the tribal area for longer than a century, but at independence—in my opinion, wrongly—was cut off from the rest of tribal area. Furthermore, the larger part of the tribe lives within Ciskei’s area of jurisdiction. Families were even separated by the border. The tribal area and community cannot be controlled and administered effectively in this way.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister gave a detailed description of the clauses of the Bill, in terms of which provision is being made inter alia for land to be added to the independent states of Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.

In this regard there were problems in respect of the original clause 3 (c) in particular. The farmers in that area were unhappy about the planned incorporation of the area in question into Ciskei, since the only access route to their farms would then run through the Ciskei. According to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon the Minister discussed the matter with President Lennox Sebe. It was agreed to omit clause 3 (c) until such time as negotiations about this matter had been concluded.

I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Mr Lockey for his support. I merely want to confirm that it is true that it was decided, after consultations with President Sebe, to exclude the area in question which was initially included in the Bill. The idea is that this case, as well as two other cases which the Republic of South Africa wants to discuss, will be placed on the table for renegotiation. At the same time the Ciskei wants to renegotiate in respect of certain areas which were not intended for inclusion. We hope that in this way, by giving and taking, we shall find a mutually acceptable solution.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Excision of Released Areas Bill provides for the excision of certain land from released areas, as defined in the first schedule of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the land in question will be administered by the Administrator of the Transvaal in future, subject to the provisions of the Black Local Authorities Act, Act No 102 of 1982, and the Development of Black Communities Act, Act No 4 of 1984. Consequently the Transvaal Provincial Administration will be responsible for the rendering of services and the development and administration of these trust areas in future.

My question to the hon the Minister is whether the South African Development Trust will develop the said areas in co-operation with the Transvaal Executive Committee and the Administrator in future. I take cognisance of clause 8 of the Bill, which provides that contracts which have been concluded with the South African Development Trust will remain in force despite the Bill, but my question actually concerns the new projects which are being envisaged in these areas. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for his support, and just in explanation I want to point out that the intention of this Bill is to remove two towns—one of which is a large development north of Pretoria at Soshanguve, and the other is Lethlabile near Brits—which form part of the development trust area at the moment, from the Trust’s released area, and to make them part of the Republic of South Africa permanently so that there will be no doubt among the residents or anyone else in future that there is no intention to incorporate those two areas, as is normally the case with trust areas, into Bophuthatswana. The consequence of this Bill will be, therefore, that the responsibility in respect of administration, and therefore also in respect of development, will be administered by the provincial administration and its department for community services, as in the case of all other Black local areas which are generally known as development areas in terms of the Development of Black Communities Act of 1984. As a result of its knowledge and experience of these areas, however, the Trust is still available to assist them in this connection, for as long as the provincial administration requires such assistance. We should like to do this as well, but we feel that in the normal course of events the responsibility would be transferred to the province in as orderly a way as possible, and that the Trust should give its full attention to the further development of towns which remain part of the Trust or are part of self-governing territories.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I support the Development Aid Laws Amendment Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill was rejected by the standing committee and replaced by a new clause. The effect of the original clause 1 was to amend section 9 of the Black Land Act of 1913 in order to grant the State President the authority to prevent the overpopulation of land in rural areas, a kind of loophole clause to accomplish forced removals. It was in view of this suspicion that the standing committee decided to reject this clause.

In addition the Bill deregulates the procedure for licence applications of Black dealers, a step I welcome and support. Clause 4 of the Bill amends the Promotion of the Economic Development of National States Act so as to extend the powers and objectives of the South African Development Trust Corporation, so that in future this body can also do development work in the fields of industry, commerce, finance and mining outside the national states. In this connection I am thinking in particular of the 14 Coloured rural areas in which the South African Development Trust Corporation’s expertise in the sphere of agriculture can make a significant contribution to improving people’s quality of life and assisting with the general planning of new farms, which are being purchased by the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives in particular. I also know that the Ministers’ Council has had discussions with the South African Development Trust Corporation, and once this legislation has been amended, it will pave the way for close co-operation in future.

I have been in contact with the SA Development Trust for some time now and on behalf of my colleagues who went to look at the projects with me, I want to say that we have great appreciation for the valuable work that is done by this organisation. In particular, it will now be possible to help the migrant workers—the Coloureds in the Karoo who work on farmers’ farms but have to move along with their donkey carts after the shearing season—and accommodate them in economic units so that they themselves can farm.

The tragedy of these people is that they want to work, but because they do seasonal work, they are needed only for a certain part of the year and are then put off the farms. That is one of the disgraces in our society.

I should like to support this particular clause most strongly, so that we can also make use of the expertise of the development trust in future.

Mr Chairman, the passing of this Bill by this House is indicative of a very important breakthrough, viz that the SDTC is being granted the authority to make the knowledge and expertise that it has accumulated available to other groups than merely the Black communities. I appreciate the fact that hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives were the ones to take the initiative in getting this matter off the ground. It is a baby which was conceived in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives as it were—if I may use these words—and I am very pleased that we could reach this point today. I am sure that the SDTC is proud of the confidence that has emerged from this request which is being complied with by means of legislation which creates a possibility for its implementation.

Indeed, as the hon member Mr Lockey said, this Bill is deregulatory and simplifying. It is an alarming fact that when one deals with legislation on Black communities, one often has to deal with a multitude of intertwined and complicated legislation which creates all kinds of difficulties. The Department of Development Aid—with the aid of a Competition Board—went through this legislation with a fine-tooth comb. This Bill amends certain parliamentary legislation so as to act in a deregulatory fashion and to eliminate unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy. I must add, however, that when the old proclamation 293 of 1963 in connection with the administration of Black towns was replaced in March this year by a modem, streamlined and deregulated system of township management and development for Black communities, a very important breakthrough was also made in the sphere of proclamation legislation in this respect.

I want to assure the hon member that we also take a positive view of the other ideas he raised here, and we shall do our best to comply with his expectations.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! On behalf of Mr Speaker, I should just like to bring to the attention of hon members that the new Standing Rules of Parliament come into operation today. Under the new Rules there will no longer be Committee Stages and all business will be controlled by the elected presiding officers from this Chair.

I also want to point out to hon members that the presiding officer will in future call on members to speak in accordance with a list of speakers supplied to the presiding officer in advance. A speaker will be allotted a certain time for his speech by his whips and he will be interrupted by the presiding officer when the time allotted to him has expired. In terms of the Rules a member may not speak for longer than 10 minutes at a time on a Vote.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

I object, Mr Chairman.

In view of the objection raised, Mr Chairman, I give notice that I shall move tomorrow that the hon member Mr M Thaver be appointed as Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

I object, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, in view of the objection raised I give notice that I shall move tomorrow that Mr P I Devan, the hon member for Cavendish, be elected Deputy Chairman of Committees.

Mr Chairman, may I seek your permission to make a very short statement. I do this especially in view of the present crisis in the House of Delegates. I make the statement to clarify certain false impressions in the House of Delegates and Parliament and among the public generally.

The impression created is that I have become a member of the National Peoples Party. I want to give the lie to that statement; I am still a member of Solidarity.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I should be obliged if I could also be afforded the opportunity to make a statement. I should like to place on record in this hon House that I come here as a member of Solidarity and as the Member of Parliament for the Havenside constituency. As such I remain loyal to my party under the leadership of Dr J N Reddy. There has been speculation over the weekend that I have fallen, or that I intend to fall, for the carrot that was supposed to have been dangled from the other side. I want to dispel all these notions as unfounded and I want it to be placed on record that I am loyal to Solidarity. I have a purpose for my party and that is to see justice and good prevail.

Mr Chairman, allow me to make a short statement. In view of the rumours that are circulating in this arena and in outside circles …

Which arena? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member has requested permission to make a short statement and hon members must please not interrupt him.

Mr Chairman, I wish to make the statement that I am the duly elected member for the Bayview constituency, elected on a Solidarity ticket, and as such I will retain that seat as a member of Solidarity and I just want to say that I have no allegiance to any other party or parties.

Mr Chairman, I seek your kind indulgence to make a statement. I am the elected member for the Moorcross constituency, elected on the ticket of the NPP and I want to state here that I have rejected overtures to join other parties although positions and carrots were dangled before me. I wish to state unequivocally that I shall remain a member of the National Peoples Party at all times. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please refrain from interrupting those hon members who seek the permission of the Chair to make short statements.

Mr Chairman, I, too, want to make myself very clear in my capacity as member of Parliament for Chatsworth Central. I am still a member of Solidarity and I have not changed my allegiance as such. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also want to make a short statement. I was elected under the NPP flag. I obtained the second highest majority in the elections and I am loyal to the NPP. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I merely wish to state briefly that I came to Parliament as a member of the PIP and that I am convinced that I shall remain a member of the PIP until the day this House dissolves. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please not harass the hon member. They must please allow him to make his statement.

There are many hon members on this side of the House who have, as it were, dangled a carrot, offering to buy out my party for a considerable sum of money. [Interjections.] I did not accept the offer, however, and I shall continue to sit in the seat I have occupied since I came to Parliament.

Order! I merely want to ask the hon member for North-Western Cape to take that carrot home tonight and eat it. [Interjections.]

Order! Who is the first hon member who will be speaking? I just want to assist hon members. We are now entering a new phase with the new Rules. The Whips should have made arrangements to provide speakers’ lists and as those lists are not here I shall have to request whichever hon member is going to kick off this debate on the Budget Vote on Justice to begin his speech.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence. With your permission I should just like to give an explanation. We have a peculiar situation in that the hon the Chief Whip of this House happens to be in the minority group at this stage. [Interjections.] Therefore, Mr Chairman, we should like to apologise to you for any inconvenience that has been caused to the Chair.

Order! I have something before me with which I could carry on, namely Order No 1, the debate on the Justice Vote. I call upon the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to speak.

Mr Chairman, I firstly want to place on record the appreciation, not only of this side of the House but I think of all the hon members of this House, towards my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, and the Director-General of the Department of Justice and all the officials of that department, as well as the officials of the Department of Prisons, for the excellent cooperation we have received whenever hon members, including myself, have made the necessary representations to the hon the Minister of Justice, to the Department of Justice, or to the Department of Prisons.

I am not wearing this flower in partnership with my hon colleague, but at the tail-end of my speech I shall tell hon members the significance of my wearing a flower today.

We members of Parliament, besides dealing with major issues relating to justice and the Department of Justice, are concerned about the provision of amenities and facilities in our areas. We are a community that could be classified as a resettlement community. The major areas in which members of the Indian community have been resettled are Chatsworth and Phoenix in the Durban area; Northdale in Pietermaritzburg; and Laudium and Lenasia in the Transvaal.

In the Durban region we cannot complain about the provision of courts of law in our areas, but there is a very serious deficiency in the Phoenix area. Phoenix is growing so fast that the whole region may dwarf Chatsworth in size. I may make the comparison and say Chatsworth is second only to Cato Manor, which is regarded as the largest single veritable Indian area outside the Asian subcontinent. At the same time I make the statement that the planning and development of Phoenix is growing at such a pace that very soon it will dwarf Chatsworth in size. During our debate on the Vote: Housing we will give the necessary details of the largest single project for Indian housing next to Phoenix that has ever taken place, and where planning is at a very advanced stage.

Last year the question of the provision of a magistrate’s court in Phoenix was raised in this House by myself and the hon member for Phoenix. I received a reply from the hon the Minister of Justice, explaining that there are good reasons why the magistrate’s courts in the Verulam area could, in the interim, cater for Phoenix. However, this causes hardship. Our welfare section makes use of the magistrates’ courts on a larger scale now. Our pensioners and old people have to travel from Phoenix to Verulam, and there is hardly a satisfactory transport system. Also, the Verulam magistrate’s court is no doubt overworked. Therefore I want to make a plea this afternoon that very serious consideration be given to providing these facilities in our areas, especially in the giant township of Phoenix.

I also want to compliment the members of the South African Law Commission for their excellent annual report, but I know of a matter which was raised previously and which is near and dear to the hearts of certain sections of our population, namely the Islamic community. They are having problems in respect of matters related to their marriages. I do not want to deal with that in great detail, but I am sure the hon member for Reservoir Hills will touch on that particular topic. Nevertheless, I want to compliment the Department on a very good annual report and also the report of the Legal Aid Board.

As far as the Prisons Department is concerned, I want to state publicly that whenever we receive representations from our religious leaders, as well as from prisoners, in respect of providing for the Hindu and Muslim religions, we get very prompt attention from the hon the Minister and the head of the prison services. There were occasions when we received complaints about prisoners not being given food according to their religious requirements.

A matter of grave concern recently has been the overcrowding of our prisons. Of course, prisons are concentrated in certain areas. While in certain areas one gets prisons that are not used to their full capacity, that does not mean that the people in those particular regions are behaving themselves! According to the annual report, as at June 1987 the overcrowding position in South African prisons was at the level of 133%.

I may add that I have had the opportunity at the request of the hon the Minister of Justice, together with certain colleagues of the Ministers’ Council, to visit the Westville prison. Those who really want to develop a healthy body, instead of going to the hydro, should go to prison.

May I ask in what capacity? [Interjections.]

Even if one is compelled to go there for a particular period, one can be sure one will come out of there a much healthier person! The kitchen at the Westville prison can be described as a five-star kitchen. The chefs are providing prisoners with the finest food from a nutritional point of view. However, I think the hon the Minister should comment on overcrowded prisons, and whether the position has improved since June last year.

Order! I just want to inform hon members that we are moving into a new situation and we are having problems. Hon members will note that in the provisional list that was circulated to them, it is stated that the Budget Vote will deal with Justice. Prisons are supposed to come later. I want to advise hon members that they may speak on the Prisons Vote as well. The two Votes are supposed to be treated as one.

A very important branch of the Department of Justice is the State Law Advisers’ Branch. Our administration have on numerous occasions made use of the State Law Advisers’ Branch. Those, of course, who are serving on the various standing committees, are aware of the excellent manner in which this branch performs its task. I do not think we should forget them. We would like to offer them our congratulations, as well.

For a considerable period of time in this country there have been discussions and debates in respect of the rights of the audience in a Supreme Court. I know my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, cannot deal conclusively with the matter today, because he has referred it to the recently instituted Rules Board for Courts of Law. They will have to decide whether attorneys should be given the rights of audience in a Supreme Court. My colleague, the hon member Mr Nowbath, may be willing to leave Parliament once he is given the right of audience in the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it is very interesting to note that the Bar Council of this country continues to uphold the traditional argument— which is contained in a recent publication—put forward over the years in favour of the retention of the status quo. The Bar Council of South Africa is opposed to attorneys being given the right of audience in the Supreme Court. It states that the Bar is convinced that the proposed change will neither reduce legal costs, nor increase accessibility to the courts.

On the other hand, such a change will endanger the continued existence of the Bar, or at least its effective operation. Consequently this will also endanger the Bench. The Bar Council therefore argues that it can have an important effect on the judiciary in this country, which is internationally respected for the manner in which it metes out justice, and for its complete impartiality, particularly in the light of the important role played by the Supreme Court in a country like South Africa. It can be expected to play an even more important role in any future constitutional dispensation. The country cannot afford the institution of change that might have the effect of impairing the status, reputation or effectiveness of the Bench.

They say it is the considered opinion of the Bar, therefore, that the public interest requires not only the retention of the existing system, but indeed the strengthening of both the Bar and the Bench.

Another important institution in this country is the office of the Advocate-General. I do not know of people who are prepared to let their tongues loose on numerous occasions, make use of that office. In October last year I sent a comprehensive memorandum to the Advocate-General who, in my opinion, is a permanent judicial commission.

I indicated earlier on that I am not wearing this flower because my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, is wearing one. This is a special occasion for the NPP and I am wearing this flower because many people do want to see that the people of South Africa do justice to those who are elected. A lot of people are saying: Let us have an election. I am wearing this flower in anticipation of a great NPP victory. Those who claim they want an election should stand up and see that there is one.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when we may get up to say that we want an election. I merely got up because he wanted us to get up. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Justice has it in his power to make significant contributions to the lessening of tension in South Africa. He can help fight the ever-growing campaign against our country for increased sanctions by taking the necessary steps for the release of Dr Mandela and other political prisoners. We in the House of Delegates endorse the view of the government of the Ivory Coast, which denies the ability of the international sanction campaign to bring down the Government of this country and calls for recognition of the reform process of this country. However, we also recognise the harm that sanctions are doing to this country. Our economy should at this stage be moving forward at a high rate but, with overseas sources of capital having to all intents and purposes come to a halt, South Africa has to generate its own capital requirements with certain limited means.

In the mean time international calls and steps to increase sanctions are continuing. Last week the International Labour Organisation’s Conference on Action against Apartheid adopted a programme of action which emphasised that comprehensive and mandatory sanctions by the UN Security Council would be the most effective and appropriate measure under the present circumstances. While the Reagan Administration has condemned further calls for sanctions, the Political Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives has adopted a Bill for further sanctions against South Africa. These will bar all US investment in South Africa and will impose a near total trade embargo.

Instead of calling for a non-negotiable transfer of power to the majority in South Africa, as the overseas mission of the ANC has done, Mandela favours a Black-White power-sharing constitution, which is closer to the position of Dr Buthelezi’s Inkatha Movement. All hon members of the House of Delegates and probably most of the House of Assembly NP members like this.

We must remember that in the tradition of South African law a life sentence has never meant a sentence for a period of the life of a prisoner. Effectually in the past it has meant a period of up to 20 years or so. As far as I am aware, except for the present political prisoners with life sentences, no prisoner has ever served more than 20 years of his life sentence at one time.

Mandela has served 24 years of his sentence and should therefore have been released from prison unconditionally four years ago. He should have been treated in a similar way to those prisoners who were found guilty of violence and received specific terms of imprisonment.

Mr Govan Mbeki was released unconditionally on grounds of health and although the Government has been disappointed with his behaviour after his release, nevertheless Mr Mbeki has not been involved in any violence since his release. If he does break the law in this respect, the Government will be able to deal with him adequately in terms of the law.

Then again, one swallow does not make a summer. We in Solidarity see Mandela together with Buthelezi as the two most powerful leaders in the African community of South Africa who will both co-operate for a democratic system based on power-sharing in South Africa. Such a combination can lead not only to an immediate change in overseas opinion on South Africa with a truce on sanctions, it can also lead to a reconciliation between Black and White unprecedented in South African history. This will help towards a settlement of the political future of South Africa where no group will dominate another group, where all the different communities in South Africa—Black and White—will work together for a powerful country. This is possible and will be a godsend not only to Southern Africa, which in reality is part of one economically intertwined system, but also for all Africa.

Even assuming that we in Solidarity are wrong about our prospects of the future of South Africa with the release of Mandela and other political prisoners and the unbanning of the ANC, then what has the Government to fear?

We in this House hold the hon the Minister in high esteem. He will have the utmost support from us and our community in any endeavours he may make to secure the release of Mandela and we plead with the hon the Minister to make such an effort in the interests of all South Africans, Black and White.

Mr Chairman, I want to deal with matters that are entirely within the purview of the hon the Minister of Justice. There is no point in dealing with matters that come under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Affairs or the hon the State President.

I am not so naïve as to suggest that if Dr Mandela, Ahmed Kathrada or other political prisoners are released, the international sanctions campaign against South Africa would collapse. We should leave that kind of childishness to other people.

I want to say that this hon Minister is responsible for the administration of justice and also for the administration of prisons. He and his department are inhumanly, unjustly, improperly and immorally keeping Nelson Mandela incarcerated. He is keeping Mr Mophuteng and Mr Kathrada incarcerated purely for political purposes—and I have said this before. Not one of them has advocated violence in the last twenty-three years. Therefore this department is wrong and that immorality must be reversed by this hon Minister, for whom we have a high regard. He must tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that he is responsible for justice and therefore he will see that justice is done.

I want to deal with the question of disparity in sentences. We know that that is a tremendously difficult task and we know that it is a doubled-edged sword. If the hon the Minister tries to intervene in the question of sentencing, he will be seen to be interfering with the integrity of the Courts. We cannot ask the hon the Minister to interfere. Nevertheless, when it comes to the magistracy I believe that in the training of magistrates some assistance and guidance could be given.

Also, magistrates should not merely write the lower Public Service examination on the B Proc. They should be required to do at least one course in sociology at university level and at least two courses in psychology at university level.

I was sitting in a court once, observing a trial. The accused was undefended. In his summary the magistrate said that the accused was a wholly unreliable witness. He was fidgety, he looked at his feet when the Court addressed him, he failed to look the Court in the eye and he averted his gaze from that of the Court. The magistrate found him guilty.

Immediately after that there was a tea interval during which I went into Chambers and said to the magistrate that the accused came from a culture where it was improper to look squarely at the face of a superior individual. The magistrate is “Nkosi”. If a person looks directly at the Nkosi he is bedazzled because the face of the Nkosi is the effulgent sun. I must say, the magistrate was a wise man and he immediately ordered that the accused be brought back. He contrived to have an appeal noted and he had the accused released on OR. He said to me that he was also going to send a recommendation for an urgent review in which he was going to submit a detailed report.

If that magistrate had had the advantage of sociological training it would have assisted him to administer justice. As I said, he was not an unjust man—he simply did not know enough.

When it comes to the training of magistrates the hon Minister can do something. I am not going to refer to the merits of the Sharpeville Six case because it is sub judice. The former Judge President of the Cape, Mr Justice A B Beyers, found mitigation in the Cohen case although no evidence in mitigation was led at all. He found mitigation in view of the circumstances.

When the hon Minister recommends clemency to the hon the State President he must realize that a crowd can become a mob in two ticks if it is misled. That sociological factor ought to be recognised—this is in the particular circumstances relevant to a particular case because one cannot generalise—by the State as the mitigating circumstances inasmuch as the State itself cannot interfere with the decision of the courts.

I want to deal with the question of the increased jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts in civil matters. I have made enquiries but regrettably there has not been an appropriate upgrading in the educational standard and experience of the magistrates. In the criminal courts great care is taken to see to it that experienced and well-qualified Regional Court magistrates are appointed. We need that same kind of care to be taken in the civil courts as well.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to the Muslim Succession Bill. I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for having referred this to the Law Commission which indeed is looking into the matter. I believe that justice will in due course be done by Parliament as a result of recommendations from the Law Commission to a very important segment of our community whose religious susceptibilities are directly involved here.

There was talk here about help. The hon the Minister of Justice is at State expense providing for the defence in a civil matter in which a particular person—not a Minister of State but a person who also happens to be a Minister—is being sued for libel. An hon member of Parliament, the hon member for Red Hill, has sued the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Mr A Rajbansi, for libel. Astonishingly, the taxpayer is made to pay for the defence through the intervention of the Minister of Justice or his department. He appears to be surprised; perhaps he did not know about this. However it is an astonishing thing that a private individual commits an alleged misdemeanour against another private individual, and the taxpayer is made to pay.

I briefly want to turn to the question of prisons. When I was there a long time ago, conditions were terrible. At this point I want to say that I went to the Westville prison recently, and I wish—I do not wish to go there again—conditions then had been what they are now. The time has passed in all civilised societies where sending a person to prison is a penal sanction. It is recognised that when a person is sent to prison it is not for punishment and not because a society which has been hurt by a criminal wants to be vindictive and take revenge; it is for purposes of rehabilitation. In the department’s annual report this concept of rehabilitation plays a very significant role, and for that we must congratulate the department.

However, we should like to know from the hon the Minister what the internationally-accepted norms and standards are which are applied in our prisons. We know of certain cases where long-term prisoners are able to get assistance in order to study at university standard. We, however, would like the hon the Minister to tell us precisely whether the United Nations-regulated standards are being applied in our prisons, because we read reports—emotive ones—and yet when certain highly qualified foreigners who are interested in the rehabilitative nature of prisons come to our country, they submit reports which are variance with that which appears in the Press. We should like to have an authoritative statement from the hon the Minister on that subject.

Our prison population is far too high; it must be reduced. Of course, that department is not responsible for that. Society as a whole has to be restructured so that the criminal impulse of the individual can be sublimated to the better status of all in society. However, the hon the Minister must tell us why he is keeping Mandela there and he must also tell us what are the conditions of his imprisonment.

Mr Chairman, in the words of King Solomon, when justice is to be done, it must be seen to be done. In South Africa the Justice Department has an excellent reputation in the meting out of judgements.

I wish to refer very briefly to the situation at Verulam and elsewhere where there are, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned earlier, overcrowded conditions. I am happy to say that the hon the Minister’s department have borne in mind the requirements of Verulam.

The magistrates’ courts at Verulam actually serve the whole of the Inanda district, and the Inanda district is not a very small one. It extends north of the Umgeni River to south of the Tongaat River and embraces a very large proportion of what was previously the Ndwedwe area. As a result of this there are definitely overcrowded conditions. With the establishment of Phoenix the difficulties have been accentuated. Very recently—I am aware that it is as a result of my representations to the magistrate at Verulam—arrangements have been made in connection with a new building that is being constructed to house extra men and personnel of the department in this new building.

In addition, the magistrate at Verulam is most willing to open up an agency at Phoenix to accommodate the situation. However, in view of the growing population of Phoenix I share the concern, or the desire, as it were, for a magistrates’ court at Phoenix. I do believe that in this direction my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice and his department will certainly meet the aspirations of the people.

However, I want to draw my hon colleague’s attention to the fact that the Indian community annually produces students with excellent matriculation results, and these students must be given employment opportunities in the Department of Justice. I am not saying that this is not being done. It is being done, but I believe that more and more of these Indian students and students of colour who are either graduating or receiving excellent matriculation results, should be employed.

What is more, I want to make the point that in certain areas, what is happening is that White personnel—and I am not speaking out against the employment of White personnel—are being ferried long distances to the magistrates’ courts, whereas we have students of colour on the spot, in readiness, who could fill those positions. I should like to appeal to my hon colleague that his Ministry give attention to the unemployment situation of Indian students and graduates.

I want to take up the point raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, namely that allegations are being made outside the borders of South Africa that we in South Africa are detaining people who should not be detained. This is certainly having an adverse effect on South Africa, and as a South African I am very concerned about it. I also think, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills has pointed out, that detentions are not the function of my colleague the hon the Minister of Justice, but he is being blamed for it.

No, no; he is keeping them detained.

I do not think it is fair to say that he is detaining them. [Interjections.] I want to make this plea. My hon colleague should avoid the adverse publicity that the Department of Justice is receiving from both within and outside our borders.

Mr Chairman, I shall not enter into any polemical exercise in politics this afternoon. I merely have a few simple questions to ask of the hon the Minister.

The Department of Justice does have a very good legal training department. I should like to know from the hon the Minister in general terms what opportunities exist in the Department of Justice for Indians. I know that there are people in this House who do not like to be referred to as Indians. They refer to themselves as so-called Indians. There are people in this House who, rather than referring to Indians, say “people of colour”. As far as I am concerned, however, it is a fact of my life that I am an Indian, and for that I have the authority of one of the most eminent sociologists in the world. I am referring to Prof Fatima Meer of the Department of Sociology, whose work is entitled Portrait of an Indian South African. That, therefore, is what I am and until such time as Prof Fatima Meer withdraws that work from circulation, closes that particular book and re-writes the South African sociological system, I am bound by her. I am an Indian South African.

I have a historical heritage. It is my heritage and I am not going to stand up in public and quote myself, as it were. I do not apologise for the fact that I am an Indian and I am not ashamed of it. Hence my questions.

What opportunities for employment in legal terms are there in the Department of Justice? I will ask a few simple, specific questions. This department trains aspirant regional court magistrates. I want to know how many Indian regional court magistrates there are who have been trained in this department for the regional bench. I should like to know how many district court magistrates are Indians. I know there are some. I should like the hon the Minister to tell this House whether these district court magistrates are limited to what are called “Indian areas”. If so, why? There are State advocates who have been trained by the department’s legal training section. I should like to know how many Indians have been trained as State advocates.

It is general knowledge like something like 50% or more of Natal’s population is Indian. I should like to know how many Indians are employed, and in what positions, in the Attorney-General’s Office in Natal and also in the Office of the Deputy State Attorney. I just want the figures. I also ask if the hon the Minister will, when furnishing that information, make statements on the subject.

There has, in recent times, been a forward and upward movement in the employment of Indians as public prosecutors. I do know that recently there has been a shift and that Indian prosecutors also work in general courts. They are not limited now, as they were at one time, to Indian courts. I should like to know how many such prosecutors are in fact Indians. Speaking from memory, I believe there is at least one prosecutor in the Supreme Court at Durban, may be more; I do not know. I believe this young woman is doing very good work.

I come to another point. Vast numbers of Indians die in Natal, for various reasons. Once they die, their estates are referred to the Office of the Master of the Supreme Court at Pietermaritzburg. I should like to know how many Indians are employed in the Office of the Master of the Supreme Court in Natal, in what capacities and at what grades of salaries. I take it that the position will be somewhat different in the Orange Free State, possibly for some years to come, until Indians begin dying there.

I should also like to know what the position is with the Transvaal Masters of the Supreme Court. I believe there are two: One in Pretoria and the other in the Witwatersrand. The reason I ask this is that there is a substantially rich Indian population in the Transvaal. It is small, but it is substantially rich. How many Indians work in these two Offices of the Master of the Supreme Court, in what grades and for how long have they been working?

The Legal Training Department also trains police officers and reference has been made in this House this afternoon to the position at Verulam. From direct personal experience and knowledge I can confirm, I think, that Verulam is possibly one of the courts in Natal with the largest turnover of work.

I would like to know whether it is correct that the police station and charge office at Verulam is, in fact, headed by a warrant officer. I do not know whether I am entering into the area of the hon the Minister of Law and Order but I want to know if it is true that a person of a rank of a warrant officer, who is a White man, is heading this police station, when there are Indian officers with the rank of lieutenant sitting in certain charge offices in Durban. I have been told that these people are just pushing pens. I do not know why this position should exist, that a warrant officer should have precedence over a duly qualified lieutenant.

As I have said, I shall not burden the hon the Minister with any kind of polemics. I just have a few simple questions. We, the Indian people in this country, are a very small community. We make up 3% of the total population. I have said as far back as 1974—I think I still have the newspaper cutting—that whatever else people might say, we are at this stage no more than sandwich fillers. We are a small community, and our immediate problems are not political principles. Right now we need food and we need jobs. When it comes to education, I will deal with that in more detail. If we can define some additional areas of employment for our people, so much the better.

Mr Chairman, I shall not do what the hon member Mr Nowbath has done. He posed a whole series of questions this afternoon. If the hon member had studied the rules of this body carefully he would have realised that he should have put all his question in writing. By now he would have had those replies from the hon the Minister or his department.

I first of all want to commend the hon the Minister for the introduction of what is commonly referred to as the day parole system. I do so, because I am very much aware that one of the biggest problems facing prisoners who have served time, is their re-integration into society.

Quite often this is a very traumatic experience, because there is a lot of uncertainty involved. Once individuals have served time, society tends to look upon them suspiciously after they have been released from prison. I therefore want to say to the hon the Minister that I believe there is a great deal of merit in his introducing the so-called day parole system, particularly for those prisoners who are approaching release.

I really want to talk about my old hobbyhorse that the hon the Minister and I have been having a go at for a long time. That is the whole question of the legal aid system in this country. There is no doubt that South Africa’s legal system is rightly regarded as being amongst the best in the world. There is no question about that, and we do not dispute that. However, we know that there are shortcomings in the system. One of the shortcomings is the low monitoring limits of jurisdiction which have been imposed on the lower courts. I am mindful and appreciative of the fact that the hon the Minister has done something in that regard. As of this year, those limits have been increased. We appreciate that, because had those limits not been increased, the small man would have been inhibited from seeking redress in law, simply because costs are prohibitive.

However, our concern still remains with the whole of the legal aid system. I believe that the legal aid system in this country has failed us. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what he intends to do about it. When we consider that 80% of all accused in criminal courts are unrepresented, there is no doubt that this would constitute our single biggest failure. I believe that this is an indictment of our entire legal system as such. If the amount of money that the hon the Minister votes for legal aid is not increased drastically, we may find that the very system of justice itself is being undermined simply because there is no money available to help the needy gain their rightful access to the legal system. I am appreciative of the fact that there has been an increase of 30% which has been provided for in this Budget, but I believe that this is not sufficient and that it is hopelessly inadequate if we compare our situation to that which obtains in Britain at the present time. Last year we spent about 32c per person per year on legal aid, as compared to Great Britain where an amount of R28 per person per year was spent on legal aid. I say loudly and clearly to the hon the Minister that if the law is to remain the ultimate custodian of individual freedom, as I believe it should, it must be available to rich and poor alike. Clearly it cannot serve the poor if they cannot afford the cost of legal representation.

The question that arises is the following: What has happened to the working group that was established by the hon the Minister under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Eloff? It was reported that he would make recommendations early this year but as yet those recommendations have not seen the light of day and I would like to ask the hon the Minister what has happened in that regard.

I also want to say here this afternoon that the private sector also has failed miserably in this regard. I would also like to appeal to the private sector to do its part in order that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done in this country. A lot more can be done by the private sector in this regard and I believe it behoves the private sector to really put its money where its mouth is. It should contribute generously towards legal aid in this country.

Quite recently the Law Society, I believe, made the very valuable suggestion that young attorneys and advocates and young articled clerks who have been drafted into national service should rather spend their time more profitably, as has been done in the Department of Inland Revenue, in assisting legal aid. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he has in fact reacted to the suggestion that has been made in that regard by the Cape Law Society. If accountants doing national service can be used by the Receiver of Revenue, why should legal draftees not put their skills to good use for the upliftment and the protection of the less fortunate in our society? If they do that, I believe it would bring more stability to the country and a greater respect for our legal system.

Next I would like to address the question of child abuse. Recently a certain Dr Gill Key made a very valuable contribution in this regard when she indicated that we need to re-examine this entire question of child abuse in so far as evidence is presented in courts. She made a point that to minimise the traumatic effects of child abuse the victim should be spared the ordeal of giving evidence in court in the normal way. We all know that in our so-called adversarial system witnesses in fact undergo very traumatic experiences in the witness box. For a witness who is a young child in a child abuse case, these experiences could be very traumatic.

I make the plea that in such cases of child abuse the conditions in which evidence is given should be made more acceptable. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not consider inviting the Law Commission to investigate this whole issue of evidence in child abuse cases.

I know that the hon the Minister has quite rightly referred many important issues such as this to the Law Commission and I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister that he does so in this regard as well. Whilst doing this, he could perhaps also ask the Law Commission to look into another matter that is causing some problems in our society and this is the problem of the single mother without proper cash support or maintenance being paid by the father in particular. With regard to this I should like the hon the Minister to have a look at the HSRC Report in which it is indicated that some 150 000 single-parent families are receiving inadequate support from fathers. I believe that legislation with regard to this matter is inadequate. We want to protect innocent victims and I believe that we should now in fact look at the legislation in this regard with a view to changing where we put the onus—proving that the defaulter does not have the means of supporting his family, rather than the other way around. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I want to highlight the activities of the Prisons Service. I have studied the annual report of the department and although it illustrates a variety of important aspects and gives significant statistics there were some figures and details that are quite interesting.

It is stated that a total of 180 000 sentenced prisoners were admitted during the year under review. It further appears that the daily average prison population of sentenced prisoners was more or less 80 000. This means that approximately 100 000 prisoners had to be released during the year. Out of these more than 64 000 prisoners were released conditionally, in other words on probation or parole.

Allow me to pause at this point to elaborate on the administration of releasing prisoners. A great responsibility lies with the SA Prison Services regarding this function because each prisoner who is released returns to the community.

Any community produces a percentage of criminal elements who spend some time in prison. However, prisoners have to be released at some time or other and it is of the utmost importance that a solid system be established to carry this into effect.

Not all prisoners are a threat to the community. To some the humiliation of being in prison has a deterrent effect and we know that he or she will never see the inside of a prison again. However, the opposite is also true. Sentences vary from as short as one month to fife imprisonment, and crimes from relatively minor trespasses to violent crimes such as robbery, murder and rape. In this regard it is interesting to note that during February this year long-term prisoners, namely those who have been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment and longer, were serving, inter alia, sentences on the following counts: Nearly 6 000 counts of murder; almost 4 000 counts of culpable homicide; 6 000 counts of assault; 8 000 counts of rape and 38 000 counts of housebreaking.

To this detail is added each prisoner’s background and history which vary from the first offender to the habitual criminal. This gives one an idea of the complex data which has to be taken into account when each prisoner’s possible release is considered. Each individual case is thoroughly screened and a comprehensive record has to be kept of all facts that could be of importance.

One of the most important criteria is whether the release process is in the interest of the community. The prison authorities have no other choice but to release a prisoner when his sentence has expired. In the case of conditional release many factors have to be in balance before a decision is made as to whether a prisoner is to be released on probation or parole, or not. The interest of the community and the interest of the individual must be balanced. Family and friends eagerly await the release of a father and friend, but the risks regarding an individual’s release must also be calculated and taken into account.

The crux of the matter is that there should be clear indications that the prisoner will abstain from crime in future before his conditional release is approved or recommended to the Minister or the Commissioner. His general conduct during the period that he served is in many cases an indicator of what his behaviour and adaptation in the community will be.

When the prison authorities are not positive that a prisoner will lead an honest and productive life after his release or if he poses a further threat to society they will not hesitate to retain such a prisoner until his sentence expires.

If, however, at a reasonable glance they assume that a prisoner will adapt to a normal life in the community there is no hesitation in releasing such a prisoner on conditional grounds. Conditions of release are normally the following: That he shall not consider a further crime and that he must have a fixed address and a job which he may not change without consulting the release board or the head of the prison under whose supervision he has been released.

From what has been said thus far it is clear that it is endeavoured to predict human behaviour. Experts agree that this can never be done accurately. However, the integrated team approach comprising psychologists, social workers, educationalists and functional personnel contributes to the balanced viewpoint of factors on which the release of prisoners are considered.

This brings me to the various statutory bodies dealing with the release of prisoners. Firstly, an institutional committee is appointed at each prison and it comprises social workers, educationalists and, most important, the functional members of the SA Prison Service under whose supervision and control the prisoner serves his sentence. In this regard the South African concept is rather unique in the world in that its functional members with whom the prisoner has daily contact are the best equipped to report first-hand on his behaviour, adaptation etc. Usually the head of the prison chairs the committee and plays an important role in its evaluating each individual on ground level.

The Release Board, or Parole Board as it is commonly known, is situated in Pretoria. All reports and inputs of the various institutional committees regarding each prisoner are thoroughly considered and then submitted to the Commissioner or the Minister with the necessary recommendations for a final decision on either a release on parole or unconditional release when the sentence expires. This illustrates the scientific and extremely responsible manner in which each case has been dealt with.

In addition to these two bodies the Advisory Release Board was instituted in 1982. It resulted from recommendations by the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System, namely that a central body be established to facilitate the co-ordination between the judiciary and the prison authorities on the release of prisoners.

However, after careful consideration and under the supervision of the hon the Minister of Justice it was decided to give the Advisory Release Board a wider basis by including the following participants; the South African Prison Service, the South African Police, the Attorney-General, the Regional Magistrate, a member of the Release Board.

This Board is chaired by a Supreme Court Judge and its functions are primarily to advise the hon the Minister on release policy. The hon the Minister of Justice may also refer individual cases to the Advisory Release Board, and it is interesting to note in the annual report that of 35 such cases which have been released conditionally on the recommendations of this Board, none has failed to comply with his conditions. This Board was also concerned with the release of Mr Govan Mbeki towards the end of last year.

In conclusion, I wish to thank everyone involved in the release process, from the most junior member of the institutional committee to the Chairmen of the Release Board and the Advisory Release Board, for their thorough and practical efforts in this regard. The public can rely on these people for the protection of their interests. Likewise, family and friends of prisoners may rest assured that each case is periodically considered on merit, and in contrast to many other countries the prisoner or his family may not ask for conditional release; it is done automatically. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this is an appropriate time for me to make my own contribution towards the debate and to endeavour to answer some of the questions posed to me by hon members. I am not mentioning valuable speeches at this point in time.

Of course, some of the speeches were made in such a spirit of goodwill that I must treat what has been said in the course of those speeches with the modesty for which the Department of Justice is so well-known. Nevertheless I think it is also appropriate for me to add to the appreciation expressed to the department my own appreciation to the Directorate of Justice and the Directorate of Prisons together with all their members for the services rendered over the past year and also the year to which the report that was recently tabled, relates.

I think it is appropriate that I should also accept the criticism which did not surface in member’s speeches, but which was directed at certain facets of my office and which perhaps relates more to political philosophy or a personal view; criticism which is not necessarily partisan in nature and content, but nevertheless has the character of a specific point of view. I refer to the question of the release of prisoners incarcerated in terms of security laws.

Nevertheless, I do not fault that. I think this is a subject that should be dealt with and should be given our day-to-day attention, as is in fact the case. In that sense I am grateful to the hon member for Umzinto for his very valuable analysis of the release system which applies to all prisoners; not only to one group of prisoners, but to all prisoners alike. They all have to go through that process.

That policy of equating the position of all prisoners was announced in Parliament last year. It was confirmed by the hon the State President and it was that very policy and that very mechanism that applied and operated in the case of the release of Mr Govan Mbeki. That is why I say that the hon member has made a valuable contribution and I commend the speech made by the hon member for Umzinto to those hon members of all parties with a strong affiliation, or perhaps not such a strong an affiliation, which was not indicated this afternoon.

Schaharansky has also been released! [Interjections.]

I think my colleague the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has done justice to the Department of Justice by way of his contribution. He has also indicated to me that there are certain matters which he thinks deserve our attention, and I agree with him that all the matters he has raised are worthy of our attention.

I am just glancing through a number of the items he raised and although I shall not be able to deal with each and every one of these items, because otherwise I may not perhaps arrive at other valuable items raised by other hon members, I think I should touch on a few of the topics he has mentioned.

Take, for instance, the issue of the Advocate-General. The Advocate-General succeeds in maintaining the balance between the interests of the State or Government and those of the citizens. Indirectly he looks after the taxpayers’ money and sees to it that such money is not abused. Indirectly the Advocate-General’s contribution towards clean government is an invaluable one, although perhaps not visible enough. For some time now I have had on my desk some proposals to adjust and to add to the powers of the Advocate-General. In the process of attending to the proposals I have to consider the interests of the State as a whole. I have to consider the various functionaries and institutions and I have to take them with us in applying the existing law and any further proposals.

Nevertheless, I personally subscribe to the need to widen the powers of the Advocate-General which, I personally believe, would place us on a par with similar offices elsewhere in the world where they are called ombudsmen, mediators, or whatever else one chooses to call them. I am referring to our own Advocate-General’s position and I say that that office has proved its worth again and again, and I think the time has arrived for us to add to those powers.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to the issue of the right of audience. I have received a right of audience on the part of attorneys. I have received a report from the Rules Board. Hon members will recall that last year I announced that the issue of the right of audience was being submitted to the Rules Board. I am studying their recommendation and perhaps in the course of this week I shall make known what has been recommended to me and what I intend doing about this very facet.

Another matter raised by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is the issue of Muslim rights. According to the Law Commission, a questionnaire has been sent out and it appears that there is a vast interest in the issue of Muslim rights, marriages and customs. Certain interested parties have asked the Law Commission for more time to respond to the questionnaire. I think that also in a way answers the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Nevertheless, I want to assure hon members that the matter is receiving the attention of the Law Commission and will continue to do so.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to the issue of dealing with the religious beliefs of people in our prison society. Just as a matter of interest, the Commissioner is present here today and has obviously taken cognizance of what has been said about prisons in general, but more particularly about the Westville Prison. I am sure that he will not interpret that as a request for the standards there to be lowered or for there to be a sudden deterioration in conditions, but I shall revert to this topic when I reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

In reply to my hon colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, there are 1 470 prisoners serving a sentence of six months and longer who are of the Muslim faith. They are incarcerated in 96 prisons, according to our statistics of 12 February 1988. Religious care for these prisoners is provided by 37 authorised religious workers of the Muslim faith, some of whom are appointed at two or more prisons. The principle of religious freedom is maintained and therefore the church or faith is allowed to provide religious care to inmates belonging to that particular church or faith. I am stating the general principle. Regarding prisoners of the Muslim or Hindu faiths, they are properly cared for, after approval has been obtained from their controlling bodies, by religious workers administering the necessary rites if and when they visit these prisons. I trust that hon members will appreciate that we do show a sensitivity for all categories of our prison population.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also asked me about the number of prisoners, as at the end of March. At the end of March there were 89 000 sentenced and 21 000 awaiting-trial prisoners in our jails. The overcrowding is definitely on the decrease, but it is not impressive. In percentages it is a few points, but nevertheless, it shows that our efforts do achieve results. However, in the final analysis it is still the community that has to make a contribution in regard to socio-economic conditions that may, under prevailing circumstances, promote and contribute towards crime. I therefore say again that we should be sensitive about our prisoners.

However, we should be more sensitive about the people outside, people who do not have jobs, people who in their particular environment are more susceptible to criminal influences. All hon members have a very heavy to discharge with regard to the communities. They should encourage welfare organisations to do their share. That disposes of some of the issues raised by the hon member.

My colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, raised the issue of services at and for Phoenix. Before I get to Phoenix, I want to say that we do recognise that there is an overcrowded situation at Verulam. We are going to provide additional accommodation for that seat. R2,7 million is the figure that we have received from our advisors, and this money will be used for building additional buildings there. The tender date is July 1989.

Say thank you!

Thank you, Sir.

In the meanwhile we are contributing to the income of certain property owners, but I am sure that hon members are not interested in this.

Let us look at the situation at Chatsworth. A separate district exists there. In 1986-87, 4 286 hours were spend on judicial matters. We acknowledge that accommodation there is inadequate. An additional courtroom should be promoted on our building programme.

I have now announced what the situation is with regard to Verulam. Just for the sake of statistics, that court seat shows 8 980 hours spent on judicial work. The branch courts at KwaMashu and Ntuzuma are, of course, also in the picture, but they are not necessarily relieving the pressure there.

Let us look at the situation at Wentworth. The erection of new court facilities at Wentworth has been promoted. Tenders for the service will be invited during August 1999, and the building will be completed approximately 15 months thereafter. The estimated cost for the service is R3,5 million. The hon member for Merebank made representations in this regard. I want to give him credit, not for finding the money—we did that— but he did make representations.

Branch court accommodation is being planned for Lenasia. The proposed tender date is September 1989. This we have done without pressure or any requests. I think we at the department should get credit for this. Nevertheless, hon members may return to their constituencies with the message that we do realise that legal services pertain to the whole society, and should be encouraged. We will be doing our share, and I am sure hon members will also be doing their share.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central also made representations regarding the establishment of a magistrate’s court. I mention this just in passing. I am not ignoring the hon member for Chatsworth. I will return to him, but I want to come to the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills has raised a number of issues. He will appreciate that I cannot possibly reply to all of them. My time is rather limited. If time permits, I will deal with most of his topics.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills asked me about the issue of costs. He argued that we have increased the jurisdictional situation of the magistrate’s court. We now have a similar jurisdiction of up to R10 000 for liquid and R30 000 for illiquid claims, enabling lawyers and clients and citizens alike to use magistrate’s courts to a greater extent than before. The Rules Board, which is a body created by all of us for legislation, has attended to this issue. About a week ago they filed a report which I am studying and I will react to it as soon as possible. The point I am trying to make is that the Rules Board did act timeously and the hon member can therefore rest assured that the mechanism which he has helped to create, namely the Rules Board, is doing its job. As a lawyer the hon member may perhaps reconsider retiring if he hears what has been recommended.

Once I see the evidence.

Nevertheless the hon member for Reservoir Hills has every right to ask for a progress report and I am very pleased to say that this has been attended to. We shall make our reaction known.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills also discussed the issue of the norms and standards that do apply in and to our prisons. I think the hon member’s contribution was a very valuable one, as it enables us to highlight the fact that our prison service is comparable to any other prison service in the world—to and with the best of them. We are in a position to claim recognition as a prison service on par with the United States of America, Britain and every other civilised country. I would not be surprised if their visiting Westville may perhaps provide some of them with a lesson or two, despite some of the comparisons this afternoon. The hon member asked me, for instance, about the question of education. The fact is that the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, which is a product of a United Nations exercise, refer to the question of education as follows in section 77 of that code:

We administer our prison services in terms of the Act and the regulations, either passed or confirmed by Parliament. We find in our Regulation 109 the following in connection with studies:

This is being done and on compulsory studies we read this in our regulations:

We are all aware of the fact that many a prisoner has obtained a degree whilst in prison, or has even studied for a profession and we are all aware of the fact that our Prison is Service is comparable to the very best in the world.

I want to refer to a few other items. If we take the issue of discipline and punishment, it states in the Standard Minimum Rules that, “discipline and order shall be maintained with firmness.” Our rule, regulation 98, states that:

In other words, we go even further by maintaining a balance between what is necessary and what is unnecessary.

Why I am taking time to deal with the question of the hon member for Reservoir Hills, is because we are often subjected to propaganda that our legal system, which encompasses the Prisons Service, is not on a par with that of the rest of the civilised world. I want to claim this afternoon that indeed it is.

The Standard Minimum Rules is a UN document which is applied in most civilised countries as a blueprint for their penal system. Our system is based on that as I have now indicated. Moreover, our Commissioner of Prisons is the Republic’s official correspondent with the UN with regard to the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders. As far as possible we will participate in all activities of all civilised countries that strive for the improvement of prison conditions, the rehabilitation of prisoners and eventually the prevention of crime or any one individual or prisoner returning to crime.

It often happens that various organisations here and abroad attack our prison system as one which is so outdated and evil that no one who is sentenced to imprisonment can ever survive it. We have heard evidence this afternoon to the contrary.

I now submit to hon members that if they want to know anymore about the topic, which they should, then our office is available for them to obtain such information.

I maintain that it is the duty of every member of Parliament when they come across any propaganda that they know is wrong and which is malicious and which may be to the detriment of our country, to counter such propaganda, regardless of party affiliations. I therefore invite the assistance of hon members from this very strong platform to deal with our critics now and in the future. They may criticise if their facts are well-founded but not in the case of our prison society and our Prison Service in general.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills asked me about the continued incarceration of Mr Nelson Mandela. Surely the hon member should know and should realise that the policy with regard to the release of this category of prisoner was announced last year and was applied in the case of Mr Govan Mbeki.

The policy is quite clear and it can be studied in the Hansard speeches of both the hon the State President and myself. The issue of a life sentence was dealt with comprehensively and the policy was adopted on the recommendation of the Release Advisory Board to the effect that a life sentence is what it says it is. However, an early release may be earned through the mechanism discussed by the hon member for Umzinto. It may be earned through the co-operation of prisoners. I am not discussing any individual case at the moment. It may be earned if all the factors indicate a release. Such factors could be health, age and the denunciation of violence, for example. The test is an objective one and the bodies discussed by the hon member view each situation objectively. That is the answer.

Also at stake is the effect that prisoner’s release may have on society. This is naturally the case. However, no single factor is conclusive and no single factor in itself is final. Therefore our policy has to be reviewed in every case.

Let us consider the issue of Mr Mbeki. His case was clouded and bedevilled by certain individuals and organisations who used him as a front for creating an atmosphere which had all the possibilities of further upheaval. The authorities naturally had to consider that.

It has been said that the security prisoners are being held in prison by themselves and by individuals and organisations purporting to have their release at heart but who in fact ensure that they are not released by creating a climate that does not promote order and peace. Everyone should know—this applies particularly to the lawyers who act on the behalf of these individuals—that the encouraging of a climate of violence and upheaval cannot support the case of an early release of any particular individual.

Surely we are dealing with clever people when we talk about the lawyers and the legal advisers. They are people with insight. If they wittingly and willingly create an atmosphere in terms of which no peace can prevail, they must realise what they are doing. Because this is the case I am under the impression that they do not want their friends to be released.

I have gained the impression that they have more to gain from their continued incarceration than by their early release.

Give them democracy and they will be okay.

I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills has perhaps voiced a very popular slogan.

He is a popular man.

We have one man, one vote!

Fortunately for the Government the hon member is not in a position to bear the brunt of the possible consequences, unless these consequences are well calculated, and are so calculated that peace, order and prosperity still prevail. I do not intend dealing at length with this issue since everything that has been said, has been said before and everything that should be said also belongs to the immediate past. However, this is a fresh topic from day to day and we are duty bound to reconsider the situation on an ongoing basis.

This brings me to the hon member Mr Nowbath. I feel that that hon member has always tried to be fair when it comes to justice. I think that he has always delivered himself of well-prepared speeches, but I must give him credit today for a number of well-prepared questions!

He has given me this very good opportunity to say that the department’s overall activities and workload have increased by 43% over the past ten years, and yet their personnel have increased by a mere 22%. Despite this the Master’s Offices are almost up to date with their work, except for one particular Master’s Office, which is only a day behind its diary. Every other office is succeeding in staying up to date, which is quite an achievement.

Apart from that, if hon members consider that in the magistrates’ courts alone criminal work has increased by 41% between 1978 and 1987, bearing in mind that the staff has not grown in number accordingly, and if we consider that we are talking about a difference of 600 000 cases—if we convert the percentage into a number—that is how many additional cases there are since 1978. Admissions of guilt have increased by 700 000, and this represents a 42% increase.

In addition, however, we act as agent for a number of other departments and that requires us to record, on a day-to-day basis, a number of transactions in every office. This may be in connection with health, agriculture or even the dear old Treasury! In this regard the increase over the past ten years has been 83%. This looks very impressive. If one considers the number of cases dealt with by the State Attorneys, then we have had an increase of 107% over the same period. This is more than 2 000 more cases.

As to the Attorney-General’s section, their summary trials have increased by 442% and their post-mortem enquiries by 90%. I think we have made out a very good case for the Department of Justice to be decorated for efficient work because we are not lagging behind in any particular section. Every one of the hon members present could have contributed today by reproach us for being behind schedule with our work but very few hon members intimated in any way whatsoever that they considered the Department of Justice to be failing in its duty. As a matter of fact, the most that was said was that we have an overcrowded situation.

I say that this is an achievement which is second to none and I repeat that the Director-General, the Deputy Director-General and their staff should be decorated for this vast achievement.

I shall study the contribution and the questions of the hon member Mr Nowbath and I shall reply to him in greater detail. However, I think that whilst we are at it, he should launch a one-man crusade in hon members’ communities, encouraging members of the community to come forward and compete with everyone else on merit for appointment to the Department of Justice. That does not only apply to appointment to the Department of Justice but also to the appointment of people as prosecutors and magistrates.

Let us look at the issue of training as things stand at the moment. Only seven members of the Indian community received legal training in the department during 1987. That is too few; far too few. They should be encouraged to come forward in greater numbers.

The hon member asked me about particular positions. The situation is that there are no fewer than 121 members of his community in the administrative section. There are 121 as compared, for example, to 157 in the case of the Coloured population group. We have 23 prosecutors from his community, as compared with 48 from the Coloured population group.

We have quite a number of interpreters, and a number of other positions are held by members of his community. Thus we have, for instance, eight magistrates from his community and I must say immediately, Sir, that bearing in mind their talents and their natural gifts of intellect and a sense of justice, of which they have proved themselves to be masters, I think there are too few of them. There are too few. We shall do our share if they will do theirs.

The hon member for Springfield referred to the issue of day parole. I must say that this system is in its initial stage. I announced it some time last year. The purpose is, of course, to aid the reintegration of prisoners, especially those who have served a long time in prison and have no accommodation outside, or who have found it difficult to acquire a job. They can sleep in the prison at night and look for a job during the day, while there is still supervision from the prisons service. They may return at night-time.

I also thank organisations like Nicro for the interest they display. I am indebted to organisations that have the same objectives and I would encourage all communities in this country to come forward and participate in this scheme. As I say, it is in its initial stage and we still have to do much spadework. If this is done, success will follow if everyone does his or her share.

The hon member for Springfield also raised the issue of legal aid. I do not think time will permit me to deal with the issue of legal aid at length, nor with such questions as to whether it is a right or a privilege. The fact of the matter is that at the law conference, organised by the Bar Council, Mr Fanie Cilliers, a senior counsellor made a very valuable contribution. He analysed and highlighted twelve areas where legal aid is rendered in this country by various members of the legal fraternity. There is the institution of pro Deo assistance. Then, of course, we have the old institution of in forma pauperis. We have our law clinics at universities. He listed no fewer than twelve areas where legal aid is rendered in South Africa. We also have a situation where the law societies of the various provinces have recently announced services to certain categories of our community at a minimum fee.

Lawyers present will support me if I say that attorneys and advocates themselves are the best witnesses of the legal aid provided by them and their firms on a day-to-day basis. I know of very few attorneys and advocates who send out accounts for each and every single item that is rendered in their offices. I am aware of very few who practise this. This is being done virtually on a daily basis. Some of my colleagues here in Parliament—I am now referring to the legal eagles—would perhaps even say that they have had to resort to politics in order to amplify their income, having rendered too much legal aid.

Nevertheless, the situation regarding legal aid appears to be as follows. In 1969 the amount provided by the Budget was R50 000. That is when we started with legal aid. By 1977 it had increased to R1 million. I may add that I took office in 1980. In 1980 an amount of R2 million was spent. Since 1980 it has increased—and these amounts are provided by Parliament—from R2 million to R9 577 000. It looks like a fourfold increase. Translated into a percentage, it looks like 400%. If that is not impressive, what is?

Nevertheless, the amount paid out by way of legal costs grew accordingly and in such a way the Legal Aid Board became worried about its ability to meet contingent future liabilities. Thus, in 1987, an amount of R7,75 million was paid out.

Somewhere I did mention that I was in consultation with the chairman of the Legal Aid Board. I have asked them to submit to me a five-year plan, as well as an analysis of their vision of the next five years. Somewhere in the report mention is also made of contingent liability over a much longer period. After discussions with the chairman of the Legal Aid Board, Mr Justice Eloff, negotiations ensued with my friend, the hon the Minister of Finance. I received a reply from him only this morning. Rather, I received it over the weekend, but for official purposes one can say that I received it only this morning. It was read out to me over the phone over the weekend. On Sunday I viewed it myself, but officially I received it only this morning.

I do not want to keep hon members in suspense, but I think they will agree that I cannot make any announcement, or adopt any particular standpoint, before I have first discussed it with my friend, the chairman of the Legal Aid Board, Mr Justice Eloff.

Last year the hon member for Springfield lectured us on the same topic. It was not without effect. He did not waste his time. We have, in fact, attended to the issue. I will be making an announcement on this issue during the course of the week. I will, at least, announce my point of view. In the meanwhile I want to thank the hon member for a valuable analysis of the role of legal aid.

I think this concludes what I had to say on a number of issues. If I have omitted anything to which hon members have referred, they may raise it again. I will study their contributions and reply in writing as soon as possible.

Mr Chairman, am I to understand that the debate is closed? There were other hon members listed on the speakers’ list. I do not know whether they are in the House at the moment.

Mr Chairman, according to the new Rules, provision is made for a point of order to be taken by a Minister. However, the new Rules provide for an hon member to rise on a point of personal explanation. That Rule should still be there. If I have given the impression that the debate is concluded, I have erred. The debate is not concluded.

Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. I think the hon the Minister has given us a good insight into the Westville prison.

I would also like to lend my support to the comments made by the hon the Minister. I have had the privilege and the opportunity to visit this ultra-modern prison at Westville and I must say that I was very impressed to see the high standard and quality of lifestyle that is being led by those prisoners. One would not expect a prisoner to be given such five-star treatment. When one goes through their diet lists, their bedding equipment and their ultra-modern kitchen these all speak for themselves. To me it would appear that most prisoners would like to go back, because it would seem to be a better home than to have to look around for homes elsewhere.

I would also like to highlight the issue of rehabilitation, where I once again was rather impressed to see that the female prisoners are doing a wonderful job. They have been given the opportunity to learn a trade. The workshop—in particular the clothing workshop where they turn out uniforms for prisoners—is something that needs to be highlighted. The most modem machines and equipment are available and it was not surprising to note that whilst we have prisoners serving a term of imprisonment, they are also learning the trade to the extent that after their term of imprisonment they will certainly become an asset to society. In this regard I believe the male prisoners should also be considered to be rehabilitated and equipped to be productive and responsible members of society. It is my view that the hon the Minister should look into the aspects of creating workshops within the bounds of the prison to train them in building, plumbing, electrical and other important trades. When they leave the prison they will then certainly be able to find employment.

We must realise that lots of these prisoners who go to gaol are people who walk the streets—some are dagga pedlars and others conduct other illegal types of business—so that one wonders what they actually do when they come out of the prison. They go back to their same old trade. We can only make them productive and responsible members of society if this term of imprisonment could turn them into useful citizens by allowing them the opportunity at least to learn some trade which they would be able to exploit to earn a living.

Mr Chairman, I would briefly like to touch on the subject of justice. I am open to correction but I am under the impression that the Attorney-General, Magistrate’s Court and the prosecutor’s forum all fall under the purview of the hon the Minister and are therefore not sacrosanct.

I am greatly concerned with the fact that when the police complete a culpable homicide investigation and send the documents to the Attorney-General’s office, it takes months and months for that office to decide whether or not to prosecute I would like to know why from the hon the Minister. I can quote a very recent case in Pietermaritzburg. Very close to Mountain Rise Police Station an off-duty police officer was apparently under the influence of liquor when his vehicle collided with another and his car somersaulted and instantly killed a pedestrian.

That was on 4 September last year and according to information supplied to me, the police completed their investigations in mid January. Up to now those dockets apparently are still lying with the Attorney-General’s office which is deciding whether to prosecute or not.

My concern is to ask: Is this because the accused is a police officer? Is it because the accused is a person of the White race? The general consensus of opinion in Pietermaritzburg and the surrounding area is that if a White policeman kills a non-White he will not be charged. There is general consensus also that where a police officer is involved, the State Attorney’s office looks for ways and means to decline prosecution.

However, from January to May is a very long time as there is conclusive proof that the police officer was heavily under the influence of liquor and as a result in broad daylight—not at night—he lost control of his vehicle and he killed an innocent pedestrian. However, the Attorney-General’s office actually now has not prosecuted this matter.

A second matter which has come to my attention is that a person, a citizen, took out an assegai to kill an MP, an hon member of this House. That was reported to the police. The court handled that case without calling witnesses, accepted the attorney’s pleas and cautioned and discharged the accused.

I cannot see the justice here. I ask the hon the Minister in charge of the Department of Justice how justice could result. This person’s life was in danger and his death would have been imminent if others had not intervened and stopped the person who took out an assegai, from stabbing the individual. The complainant was not called to testify.

In his absence the prosecutor tried the case, accepted the accused’s version of the story and cautioned and discharged him. These are a few things I should like the hon the Minister to answer.

Mr Chairman, it is customary that when a function is over, someone normally proposes a vote of thanks. I think that this is what we must do to the hon the Minister, the Director-General, his staff and the prison staff in particular. They have been doing a lot of humanitarian work. I am thinking in particular of the load of legislation that comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and I think they should be complimented on the enormous amount of work justice entails and which they do. Moreover, when it comes to the certain recommendations of the Law Commission we see the hon the Minister putting some of these into effect and I am thinking particularly of the Bill today.

I want to raise one or two important issues. One of them is the small claims court. This particular court saves a lot of money in the way of litigation, particularly as far as the poorer class is concerned. The small claims courts are manned by commissioners who are lawyers and who give their service free of charge.

What I would like the hon the Minister to do is that, just as he has extended the service to various areas, to also provide better facilities for the small claims courts in which to function. They carry out an important piece of work and their service should be extended to various areas where people can enjoy these facilities.

I want to make another point. The hon the State President said in his Opening Address that there must be a cut in State expenditure, but one expenditure that cannot be cut is the expenditure on prisoners. People are sentenced daily to terms of imprisonment and this costs a great deal of money. I think the hon the Minister should consider the idea that first offenders can have a choice between a term of imprisonment or a fine. This would bring in more revenue. I think certain prisoners who are first offenders should be lodged in institutions like hospitals and such like so that their services can be absorbed by these institutions. This would also be a way of saving money.

I wish to place on record our appreciation to the hon the Minister, the Director-General and his staff as well as the prison staff for the valuable humanitarian work that they are rendering to the country.

Mr Chairman, I think it would be practical and correct if I thanked the hon member for Havenside for pointing out the opportunity afforded to prisoners in prisons to develop themselves while keeping themselves occupied. The opportunity for personal development does exist. I hasten to add that our department has a great “hunger” for job opportunities for prisoners in prison. Although it may sound strange, I use the word “hunger” because at the slightest opportunity, we shall extend the service so that all prisoners in prison can be kept occupied with training and gaining some or other qualification.

I want to refer the hon member to paragraph 3.3 on page 23 of the department’s annual report.

†Under the item “Agricultural Activities” the hon member will read that we involve prisoners on our prison farms. Here they make a vast contribution towards the provision of rations and necessities for other prisoners. It is clear from this paragraph that our farms are capable of a vast production. I must emphasise that we are still in a process of developing more farms.

I also want to stress that a distinction must be drawn between these farms and the outposts that were recently abolished. These outposts provided labour for certain farming communities but they have now been abolished. I personally think that it is to be regretted because I was told that prisoners prefer to work in the open where they can enjoy the fresh air, instead of being incarcerated. We were challenged on the issue of these outposts and the outside world branded this as unrecognised labour. As we do not want our produce to be associated with unrecognised labour, we have abolished these outposts.

Nevertheless orderly farming activities are continuing on quite a large scale and we are producing a considerable volume of farming produce, etc, which is mainly consumed in the prisons.

However, if we look at paragraph 3.3.3 under the heading “Workshops”, we read the following:

Of more importance, Sir, are the paragraphs entitled “Training of Prisoners” and “Vocational Training”. If we just look at the analysis of prisoners who have achieved good results in vocational training, we see the following: Hairdressers, 10—I would not be surprised if some well-known names appear under this group; painters and decorators, 236; carpenters, 200; plumbers, 211; bricklayers, 403; plasterers, 192; wall and floor tilers, 8; fitters and turners, 102; sheet metal workers, 166. I see there is also an item “Joiners”—it has nothing to do with politics—for which the figure is 255. [Interjections.] Other figures are as follows: tool makers, 24; cabinet makers, 67; furniture makers, 24; polishers, 4; and fitters, 2. There are a number of other professions in which artisans can qualify and which I have not mentioned.

The point I wish to emphasise is that 525 prisoners wrote evaluation tests during the year under review and 365 of them passed. This represents a pass rate of 66,97%. The Department of Manpower is responsible for these evaluation tests; not the Prison Department. These people are judged on merit.

Then we have specialised training, and here I quote as follows:

This is apart from the vocations which the hon member mentioned. It reads further:

I think that the department should be commended for opening up more new opportunities for men as well. I think that the hon member was under the impression that we were only fair and equitable in the case of women. That is not the case, and there are definitely quite a large number of men in the ranks that I have mentioned.

The hon member for Camperdown raised a number of specific issues. He tried to take me to task for something of which I have no knowledge. I gather that he was trying to intimate that there is some discrimination when it comes to decision making on the part of the Attorney-General and his prosecutors. This is nonsense. I do not easily say this to an hon member, but it is nonsense. I challenge the hon member to give me details of the case, matter or issue he has in mind.

I shall deal with it. If it is not within my province, if it does not fall within the ambit of my duties, then I shall pass it on to the department where it belongs. I shall do that. However, I am so confident about the norms and standards applied by the Department of Justice in deciding whether or not to prosecute that I have gone further than I have done in a long time by telling an hon member that it is nonsense. [Interjections.] I shall apologise to him if I find anything in his statement that resembles the truth. I shall do so in this House. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Thaver discussed the workload and he also discussed with us the issue of the many Bills that come before the Standing Committee on Justice. However, does the hon member realise that all the Bills that come before Parliament and all the Bills that come before standing committees have to pass through the very able hands of our State law advisers? They have to deal with legislation in such a meticulous way that they avoid criticism of Parliament, that they obtain confirmation from Parliament, and that they avoid criticism from our courts of law.

Apart from some academic observations and analyses—there is one in the recent publication of Codicillus on the art of drafting legislation—I challenge hon members to do better. I challenge hon members to find academics and lawyers outside who can do better than our law advisers. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon Minister a question?

If the hon member for Camperdown would like to ask me a question on the same topic, I shall gladly answer it; otherwise would he allow me to continue and I shall answer his question at the end of my speech.

As far as the small claims courts are concerned, I shall deal with the number of small claims courts more comprehensively on another occasion. The number of courts instituted is in excess of 40. Well over 40 have already been established and I believe that seven or more of the commissioners presiding at such courts are from the Indian community. Once again I say that in view of their talent and the number of attorneys in that community there should be more members of that community presiding over our small claims courts. I thank the hon member for a contribution that will enable me to discuss the small claims courts at length on another occasion. They are definitely filling a gap in our legal system and as I have said elsewhere—and perhaps in this House as well—they serve as a crucible for future development.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills is not here at present. I shall therefore delay replying to him. Perhaps someone could just indicate to him that there is still one more item he raised that I want to mention. On second thoughts, since I am not attacking him, perhaps I may continue. [Interjections.]

The hon member referred to the fact that the State Attorney acted on behalf of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in a certain civil action. There is nothing extraordinary about this. Such a situation is visualised by the very Act that pertains to the State Attorney, namely the State Attorney Act, Act No 56 of 1957. Under the heading in section 3: Functions of State Attorney, we read the following:

Section 3(3) reads as follows:

When a Minister or a State department becomes involved, in the normal course of events, the State Attorney would decide to act on behalf of such a Minister or State department, unless the Minister of Justice, as I said before, directs otherwise. In this case then, or rather in such an event, as a matter of principle, I do not intervene or apply my powers under this section unless I am completely convinced that such a case would fall outside the normal course of activities of such a Minister or department.

Nevertheless, it has become policy to obtain from such a Minister an undertaking that he would imburse the State in respect of legal costs in connection with the action, as well as in respect of all amounts that the State may expend on his behalf in terms of any settlement that may be reached in terms of an order of court that may be given against him in respect of any event or action in which and according to which the finding of the court is, or, if there be no such fining, in the discretion of the Minister of Justice.

This case is no exception. Such an undertaking was obtained right at the outset and of course is a part of our official documentation. It is therefore not an issue where the taxpayer’s money is expended on behalf of an individual. If, from the court’s record, it so appears, or if it is so in the discretion of the Minister of Justice, according to the facts, then they may recover whatever has been disbursed and expended.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he will accept that I merely made a statement of fact that his department is providing free legal aid to one of the hon the Minister’s colleagues. I expressed no opinion.

Mr Chairman, the hon member disappoints me. He is placing too little value on his own opinion if he intimates to me that I should not have replied to him. I regarded his opinion as worthy of reaction, to keep the record straight; not to put it straight, but to keep it straight.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, this Bill emanates from an investigation by the South African Law Commission into the law of trusts. The trust was not known in Roman Law or Roman Dutch Law. The English courts developed the trust from the “Saalman” or “Treuhand” institutions of Germanic law. This part of our law was introduced during the 19th century into South African practice without any intervention from the legislature. Our courts thereafter developed our own law of trust and they are still developing it by adapting the trust idea to the principles of our law.

The flexibility of trust is an important factor which makes the use thereof so popular. Pierre le Paule stated as follows:

The South African law of trust is not codified at present and the Bill does not envisage the codification of the law of trust. Codification may bring about an undesirable inflexibility and restrict further development. The Bill is intended to regulate only the control over trust property in more detail and to overcome specific problems.

The following existing problems are dealt with in the Bill. At present uncertainty exists regarding the power of a person to act as a trustee because he does not have a certificate of appointment as thus an executive. This uncertainty is illuminated in clause 6 by providing that the Master must authorise a trustee in writing to act.

According to the law at present it is necessary, in the event of a vacancy occurring in the office of trustee which cannot be filled in terms of the trust instrument, to apply to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a trustee. In Clause 7 the Master is authorised to appoint a trustee himself in such circumstances.

The Master does not have a general power to appoint or to recognise a foreign trustee. With inter vivos trusts recognition is required by the court. In Clause 8 it is proposed that the Master can authorise a foreign trustee to act.

Clause 12 eliminates the existing doubt regarding the effect of the sequestration of a trustee on the trust property, by providing that trust property does not form part of a trustee’s personal estate. The court furthermore has a limited power to vary a trust instrument, since it is not the court’s function to draw up a document on behalf of the parties. With trusts of long duration there is justification for giving the court the power to provide relief in cases of unforeseeable circumstances. In Clause 13 the court’s powers to vary a trust instrument are extended.

At present the court’s consent on behalf of beneficiaries under tutorship or curatorship is required before a trust instrument can be varied. Clause 14 now determines that such a beneficiary’s tutor or curator can agree on his behalf to such amendment, provided it is to the beneficiary’s benefit. If a trust instrument does not provide for the resignation of the trustee, a trustee may at present as a rule, only resign with the consent of the court. Clause 21 provides that any trustee may resign by giving written notice to the Master and beneficiaries.

Clause 22 provides that the trustee is entitled to a reasonable remuneration if the trust instrument does not provide for remuneration. It just shows how important money is!

Chapter III of the Administration of Estates Act, which has not yet come into operation, makes provision for the trustee’s administration of trust property to be very much more under the control of the Master of the Supreme Court than is the case at present. The trustee must, for example, lodge an account and an auditor’s certificate with the Master each year.

The South African Law Commission accepted as a starting point that State control over trusts should be kept to a minimum. The Bill consequently contains provisions which are aimed at enabling interested persons to protect their own interests. The following clauses are of importance in this regard: Clause 18 provides, amongst others, that an interested person is entitled to copies of documents relating to trust property under the Master’s control. Secondly an interested person’s right to apply to court for an order directing the trustee to perform his duties is regulated in clause 19. An interested person may, in terms of clause 20 (1), request the court to remove a trustee from office. Clause 9 provides that a provision in a trust instrument which would have the effect of indemnifying a trustee against liability for breach of trust, if he fails to show the care, diligence and skill required of a trustee, is void.

The Bill does not require a trustee to report to the Master on his own initiative. The Master does, however, have the power to request the trustee in writing to account for his administration. The Bill also contains several other important provisions which are aimed at tightening up control over trust property and combating any irregularities.

The most important of the abovementioned are the following. The Bill provides for the reporting of irregularities to the Master. Clause 15 provides that any person who audits the accounts of a trust must report material irregularities, which have not been rectified after notice thereof, to the Master. The amendment of the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act authorises the Registrar of Financial Institutions to convey information which emerges from an investigation or inspection, to the Master without a court order being required, as is the case at present. Secondly, where reasons exists for the Master to interfere with the administration of a trust, the Bill contains provisions which enable the Master to act effectively. It is, for example, provided that the trustee must furnish an address for the service upon him of notices and processes to the Master; the Master may, notwithstanding the provisions of the trust instrument, appoint a co-trustee; the Master may apply to court for an order directing the trustee to comply with his requests to perform any duty imposed upon him by the trust instrument or by law; the Master may remove a trustee from his office if, amongst others, he fails to perform his duty satisfactorily or to comply with any lawful requests of the Master.

Whenever the term trust is used in its widest sense, it can include almost any fiduciary relationship. It can include a tutor, curator, executor or agent. The definitions of trust, trust instrument and trustee in Clause 1 of the Bill restrict the application of the Bill to those trusts in the narrow sense which ought to be subject to the provisions of the Bill.

As appears from the numerous amendments which were proposed by the Standing Committee on Justice, it is evident that the committee considered the Bill and the commission’s recommendations very thoroughly. In conclusion I would like to express my appreciation to the committee for its contribution.

Mr Chairman, a trust in the narrow sense of the word—the type of trust which is being addressed in this Bill—exists when the creator of the trust, for example the founder, hands over or is bound to hand over control of an asset which, or the proceeds of which, are to be administered by another. For example, the trustee in his capacity as such, must promote the benefit of some person, for example beneficiaries, other than the trustees, or for some impersonal object. The most important legal consequence of the existence of a trust is the control of the court over the administration, for example the appointment and removal of trustees.

This part of our law is still very much in a state of flux and I am therefore very happy to see that the Bill does not try to codify our law of trusts, but has rather purported to regulate those aspects which have posed problems in the past. I have no hesitation in supporting this measure which eliminates so many uncertainties and problems.

Mr Chairman, I am vastly interested in what the hon member for Chatsworth Central said. Of course, this Bill takes further the provision of the Trust Monies Protection Act and the principles enshrined therein. Respectfully, it would also seem to me as if the Bill to some extent codifies the common law. As the hon the Minister has correctly stated, the law relating to trusts has come to us from Britain and more particularly from England.

As I understand it, Scottish law did not contain much of a body of expertise in this connection. It is among the English, more particularly because their system of succession was primogeniture, that over generations a body of law relating to trusts rose in that part of the world.

At the present time in terms of the Trust Monies Protection Act even if the creator of a trust where it is inter vivos or a testator if it is mortis causa provides that the Master shall not require security, the present Act contains a provision that the Master may override the wishes of the testator or the creator. That is now brought forward into this Bill and the question may well be asked as to why a public official should be given the power to override a written instrument made freely and voluntarily by a citizen.

We know that provisions in a will are not lightly upset. Even the Supreme Court will require powerful persuasion to alter a provision in a will. Therefore the question arises as to why we are prepared to do this. The Master was given this power in 1934 when we were not present here, but I as a member am prepared to allow that power to be continued to be vested in the Master. It is necessary for that to be done because circumstances could well change from the time that a will was made or a person died or a trust was settled by the settlor of the trust. The Master will be in a position to exercise a quasi judicial oversight and to use the authority and, if he deems it necessary, to require that security be introduced.

An innovation in our system is that in terms of clause 10 it is required that a trustee, in the same way as attorneys, accountants and estate agents, shall have a trust account and a similar provision is now required so that the monies belonging to a trust be entirely separate from the corpus of the trustee himself. The common law that the property of a trust shall not be confused with the personal assets of the trustee is enshrined in this Bill in what I refer to as partial codification.

A new innovation in clause 15, which is a desirable innovation, requires any person who performs an audit of the accounts of a trust, to report to the Master in the event of any irregularity being found. A further innovation which is also desirable is that in the same way that a Master of the Supreme Court may call for information and an accounting from the executor of a deceased estate, he may now do so from administrators, who are called trustees, or from trustees per se when they are appointed inter vivos. It is desirable that this kind of control should be maintained. It is going to cause a little extra expense to the trust itself. It is going to cause an inconvenience to those who are appointed trustees. However, it is in the interests of the trust and therefore in the public interest that it should be done.

Provision is made for the Master now to appoint a trustee. At the present time the Master does not have that authority so that when a trust becomes vacant the beneficiaries have to suffer the cost of engaging attorneys and advocates to make an application to the Supreme Court.

That will now be circumvented in the appropriate cases. If the Master declines to make an appointment, obviously the report will have to be handed to the Supreme Court. However, the innovation is a good one. The provision for disciplinary action to be taken against a trustee who fails to perform his duty as provided in clause 19, or the removal of a trustee as provided in clause 20, are also worthwhile.

I am not criticising the officials or the draftsmen. Certainly the draftsmanship of this Bill is an elegant piece of work. It is one thing having legal principles in mind and another to put them into good, attractive and workable language. That has been done in this Bill. However, I think all of us, including myself as a member of the standing committee, slipped up. We really should have enlarged the scope of this Bill to bring Ministers of State and members of the Ministers’ Council within the purview of the Master of the Supreme Court. What a wonderful thing it would be if every Minister had to account to the Master for his actions.

Then we would not have this strange situation where the hon member for Springfield gave notice in this House of an intention to move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into a certain transaction where an hon member of this House acquired a property from the State for R34 000. That same hon member, who happens to be a member of the NPP, has been negotiating with the department headed by the hon the Leader of the NPP who is also the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in this House, for that department to repurchase the same property for R400 000. [Interjections.] What a delightful thing it would be if the Master could appoint inspectors to investigate this.

Mr Chairman, I am shocked and surprised …

Order! Is this a point of order or a question?

Mr Chairman, it is a question. I must say that misleading statements are made every time that land transaction is discussed. What I am going to do is to put it on the Order Paper …

Order! That is not a question. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

We are prepared to support the calling of a select committee. That is the hon member’s question.

Mr Chairman, I did not identify the hon member for Lenasia West. He identified himself. [Interjections.] Apparently he acquired this property from the State when he was active in the management committee of that area. The hon member should have no difficulty whatsoever in asking the hon the Leader of his party, the Chief Whip of the House and the Leader of the House, who are all senior officials of his own party, to place this motion on the Order Paper so that a select committee of this House could be appointed. The hon member could produce the evidence before that select committee which would—if he is correct—disprove the allegations made against him.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

If it is a question, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills has asked for an inquiry, there is something here that I want to read.

Order! The hon member must either take a point of order or ask a question. Has the hon member got a question?

Mr Chairman, I would like to make a statement. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

When a man is a member of Parliament he occupies a position of trust. When a man is a member of a local authority, management committee or a local affairs committee, he occupies a position of trust. If a man or a woman abuses that position of trust then that is a thoroughly disgusting and disgraceful state of affairs.

When a man is a Minister he occupies a position of trust. If a man or a woman who occupies such a position of trust, aids and abets or connives at such abuse, then he too is behaving irregularly.

Order! I should like to request the hon member to return to the Bill.

I should like to ask the hon member to confirm whether there was any wrongdoing in this exercise and whether any Minister aided and abetted this so-called wrongdoing.

Mr Chairman, the entire object of the motion of the hon member for Springfield was to inquire into that particular situation.

Answer my question.

It is the hon the Chairman of the hon the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Chief Whip who are thwarting that inquiry. No person who has nothing to hide should thwart that inquiry.

Order! I think that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has gone off the track. He must please return to the Bill.

There are various kinds of trusts as well. We have referred to the hon the Minister himself—the Minister of Justice—and nobody has ever said that the Minister of Justice has connived at anything improper. He has referred to trusts inter vivos and also trusts mortis causa. Among those trusts there is a variety of objectives. There is a business trust, which can be created in a will; there is a business trust which can be created during the lifetime of the settlor and there are family trusts which provide for the maintenance and support of spouses, children and grandchildren. These are perfectly legitimate. There are also charity trusts. One tremendous advantage of this Bill is that it will enable the Master of the Supreme Court to do something. At the present time it is only the Receiver of Revenue who is able to determine from time to time whether a charity trust really performs charity. However, the Master of the Supreme Court will, by sending inspectors to examine the books of the trust, determine whether it is a real charity trust or whether it is a disguised charity trust.

I shall not mention any names, but a certain individual who received a large sum of money said that he was going to create an educational trust for Black children. It is believed that he did precisely that; for his children, his grandchildren and other members of his own family! Of course, they were all Black children. [Interjections.] This, however, could hardly be called a charity trust.

Regrettably there are a number of charity trusts which have not performed any charity for a long time. Those charity trusts could also be looked at by the Master.

There is one caveat. We extracted a promise from senior officials of the department that now that extra burden is going to be placed on the Master of the Supreme Court, the Master would be given adequate facilities so that the additional burden could be carried without adversely affecting either the objects of this Bill or the work of the various Masters. I am certain that that will be carried out so that once this Bill becomes an act, the purposes of that Act will be met satisfactorily by the officials charged with that responsibility.

We believe, for the reasons I have expressed, that the Bill is worthwhile supporting and we do so for that reason.

Mr Chairman, despite its name, the Trust Property Control Bill of 1988 has been welcomed by practitioners, donors and trustees, and beneficiaries will no doubt give it similar acclaim.

The amendments stem from recommendations by the South African Law Commission, which said in part that State control should be kept to a minimum.

It found no need to revise or qualify the law of trusts in its entirety. Trusts may be formed during a donor’s lifetime, inter vivos, or upon death, in a will. They may have had uses, especially until recently, in estate planning.

The Bill does little more than recognise what has actually been happening. It regulates control over trust property previously regulated by the Trust Moneys Protection Act, 1934 and, in some respects, the Administration of Estates Act, 1965. The former has been repealed in its entirety and chapter III of the latter has been repealed and other sections amended to bring them into line with the new Bill.

The provisions of the Bill apply only to trusts. The definition of “trust”, read together with the definition of “trust instrument”, is wide enough to embrace an inter vivos trust.

No trustee—which would now include the founder of a trust—can act as such until authorised in writing by the Master of the Supreme Court. In addition the Master is given discretion to dispense with security by a trustee and to order a trustee who has been exempted from furnishing security in order of the trust instrument to furnish security.

The Bill gives statutory power to the principles recognised by the courts. The trust property does not form part of the personal estate of a trustee.

An interesting change is that a trustee in the performance of his duties and the exercise of his powers, must act within the standards of care, diligence and skill which can reasonably be expected of a person who manages the affairs of another.

Other changes recognise practicalities and although the legislation will come into operation only on a date to be fixed by the hon the State President, the definition of “trustee” includes any person whose appointment is already of force and effect at that time, making some provisions applicable to persons who are already in office in that capacity.

The Bill overlooks for the time being several recommendations that stemmed some years ago from the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, whose primary concern appeared to be the use of trusts for trading purposes, giving the advantage of limited liability with few of the disadvantages that a company would have. Some trusts, it appeared, had been set up solely for this purpose and to cash in on tax benefits.

We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is another product of the South African Law Commission and I think it is a Bill that makes the work of practising attorneys far easier. It updates the administration of deceased estates.

It lays down certain important qualifications in so far as the appointment of trustees in respect of immovable property in deceased estates is concerned.

The very foundation of the Bill rests on the following objects, which I should like to read from the Bill. Unfortunately, I did not attend the meeting of the standing committee but I am authorised to represent my party in so far as this Bill is concerned. [Interjections.] I quote from the Bill as follows:

1. (a) to another person, the trustee, in whole or in part, to be administered or disposed of according to the provisions of the trust instrument for the benefit of the person or class of persons designated in the trust instrument or for the achievement of the object stated in the trust instrument.

It later continues with the qualifications and requirements for the appointment of a trustee. He must conform to the requirements of the Master. As I said earlier, various qualifications are set by the Master for the performance of a trustee in respect of his appointment in a deceased estate.

I think the legal profession has been looking forward to such an Act. It repeals the Trust Moneys Protection Act and a certain portion of The Administration of Estates Act. I think it simplifies how an immovable property in an estate has to be dealt with. I think the hon member for Reservoir Hills, himself an attorney, was able to explain fully the functions of this particular Act. We from this side of the House, both parties concerned, have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to say that for those of us who perform the execution of trust wills, the updating and the regularization in this Bill are very welcome indeed.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills spoke of the importation of the idea of a trust will from Britain. I think the Indian community of Natal needs to be paid a tribute, because they saw in the provision of trusts and trust wills, the possibility of safeguarding their property for their heirs and benefactors. They also saw in this the opportunity for the creation of educational, religious and development trusts. If we look particularly at religious trusts in South Africa, we find that the German, Dutch, British and Afrikaner peoples of South Africa and the Indian community have all established trusts. However, in the past there was some difficulty in relation to the execution of the trust requirements. I am aware that if one’s trust deed had been so written that there should be no difficulty in relation to its functions or the intentions of the maker of the deed, then we would not have had the problem for which this Bill provides.

Religious trusts were established purely for churches, temples, mosques and other places of religious worship. In these trusts provision is made to look after and keep those mosques, temples, or whatever, and that the revenue of property-owning trusts be used for those purposes. Also, the trust gave permission to the trustees to buy properties which would be rentproducing so that the extra revenue that came in would look after the escalating expenses of these religious trusts. However, there was an impediment. The Receiver of Revenue would not allow the trust to engage in these kinds of activities, for trade purposes. As I see it, that impediment will now be overcome by the provision of these trusts.

Perhaps I am confusing my hon colleague when I say this, but we have had the experience that the Receiver of Revenue rules out of his regulations that a bona fide religious trust, which relies on rent it receives, is not to be permitted anymore. Accordingly, the establishment of buildings which produce rentals is no longer to be permitted. We have had this difficulty and I want this in writing. This Bill will now eliminate any further difficulties.

As long as a trust deed is properly written, and allows for proper appointment and—in the case of vacancies—new trustees, the Master will not object to these provisions, because there is going to be an arrangement between the Master and trustees in terms of the trustee that he should have the intention of the original make-up of the trust.

I join hands with the hon member for Reservoir Hills. This is an advance on the present situation, and we welcome it.

Mr Chairman, I also want to join others in welcoming the improvement contained in the Trust Property Control Bill. The hon the Minister of the Budget emphasised some positive features as far as what the Indian community had done in respect of the creation of trusts, especially charitable trusts, and especially the responsibility of the trustees to ensure that these properties generate revenue which could be used for the purposes for which these trusts were established.

In another vein, this particular Bill also makes significant amendments to certain existing laws of trust. One of the amendments relates to the Trust Moneys Protection Act, Act 34 of 1934, and Chapter III of the Administration of Estates Act, Act 65 of 1965. Here I want to recommend to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, to look at the Administration of Estates Act.

In our community, especially, we have many people who have improved themselves. Some do not have the knowledge or the educational background to engage professional people for the purpose of winding up estates or the administration thereof. I know, for example, that there was one attorney in Durban who specialised in the administration of estates. He is questioned by quite a lot of children—who have since grown up—who found that the estates of their parents and grandparents have not been wound up.

I very strongly want to recommend to my colleague to examine these attorneys. There is one very famous attorney in Grey Street upon whom hundreds of curses have been showered. I have received representations, and when I see the tears of the people and hear their pathetic stories, I ask them to go to the Law Society.

I do not want to take this on myself because someone may misconstrue this as political mischief-making. In all seriousness I would like to state that some of these people in the Shallcross and Chatsworth areas were once wealthy farmers. Their land was taken away and some attorneys wanted to keep this in trust. Some of the children are now re-opening what the parents owned, only to find that there is no trace of at least 50% of the properties. There is no trace, but the parents are aware of this fact. They say that their fathers and mothers owned this property, but all the documents were taken away by a certain attorney and what is left could be as little as 5% of what was there before. I may privately name this attorney to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice.

I am not saying this in jest and I do not get this information out of a postbox, where I may lose the postbox number. I have genuine cases of people who have definitely complained and who have come with pathetic stories of the swindling of trust properties. [Interjections.] Yes, definitely. I have refused to handle this myself because I may be accused of making a political case out of this.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council aware of the fact that where any individual is aware of a crime having been committed and he does not report that crime, he is also an accessory after the fact? [Interjections.]

I do not think this is a case of socius crimini.

You are then also guilty.

Mr Chairman, the hon member said: “You are also guilty.” I would like him to withdraw that.

Order! Did the hon member say that the hon the Chairman is guilty?

Yes, Mr Chairman. I did say that.

Order! Did the hon member actually say: “If this is so, then the hon the Chairman is also guilty?”

Mr Chairman, since the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has knowledge of this crime having been committed and because the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has failed to report this matter to the Police, he is also guilty of the crime.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

I was discussing the Administration of the Estates Act with the hon the Minister of Justice and while it is not directly related it also deals with trust property and I would like to suggest that we should have an ombudsman. These poor people cannot go to another attorney and they are not aware of the Law Society as such. We should place a time limit on attorneys who might fleece people in respect of the winding up of estates. There should be someone like a special Advocate-General who may protect these people.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council makes reference to these various alleged irregularities and the fact that the ordinary, simple folk do not know how to deal with these issues. In his own experience, has the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council helped any such people and referred them to the Law Society? Has he had any recourse from them?

Mr Chairman, I have given these people the address of the Law Society, but I did not want to write or type such a letter lest it be said that I am carrying out political vendettas. However, in all seriousness I would suggest to the hon the Minister of Justice to examine this. Why should people have to complain after ten or eleven years that their estates have still not been wound up? Everything is locked up and no one can make use of it. I know of one case, one estate which has not been wound up for 28 years. I can provide my hon colleague with the information.

Is it a trust? It could be a trust.

No, it is not a trust, but there is one attorney in Durban who specialises in these delaying tactics.

Call for a commission of enquiry. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the House of Delegates has a trust and that is called the Housing Development Board. This board of trustees is bound by a rule. Officials of the Department of Housing have a standing instruction that the board requires a valuation of any property to be acquired to be determined by an independent sworn valuer.

Like the Odeon Cinema where you paid R1,1 million for a R700 000 building.

I would suggest to the hon member for Reservoir Hills to find out from a standing committee of the House that will be meeting who signed for the acquisition of that property.

On whose instructions?

No instructions, no instructions! If anybody said that I instructed it they are misleading the House. [Interjections.] There were no negotiations.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must not be interrupted when he is making his speech.

Refer the matter to the Advocate-General. One must not pass judgement on others by the standards one has set for oneself. One must not mirror what possible wrong one does and allow it to reflect on others.

Do you say one should point it out if somebody else is a thief?

What I am saying this afternoon is that if the cap fits somebody do not blame me if they are wearing it.

All I want to say about this trust or the property referred to in Lenasia is that the official concerned has a standing instruction to obtain valuations. There is also an instruction that if any property that belongs to a member of Parliament is to be acquired the Minister must be advised immediately.

One cannot blame an official if sworn valuers value a property. All the officials do is receive valuations from sworn valuers of repute. Let us therefore not make politics out of this and let us not say that the official concerned committed any offence.

There are cases where the value of properties has rocketed. If any properties were sold by the former Department of Community Development and subsequently a housing scheme was constructed next to it its value is going to rise. However, the Housing Development Board will not acquire properties until such time as it is satisfied that it has one or two valuations determined by independent valuers.

I want to say that the Housing Development Board knows that the Department of Housing has bought these properties. We are still examining the matter to see if we can afford the acquisition of these properties.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are we discussing housing legislation?

Lecture your own so-called leader.

Order! I think in fairness to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council I must say that this matter was referred to in a speech by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. However, I should like to appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council kindly to come back to the Bill.

I want to say in another way that our trustees are bound by golden rules and I want to recommend very strongly to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Justice, to consider very seriously the suggestions I have made this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, I feel honourbound to apologise to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for having sidetracked him this afternoon by what was an innocent motion on my part calling for the appointment of a select committee. Nevertheless, I want to say to him this afternoon after having listened to him, that he appears to have lost his senses. On the other hand, I do not blame him, because of the trauma of the past few days.

No, I am not the one missing my senses.

He is understood to have lost his head, so one can understand that he has now lost his senses.

I want to come back to the Bill before the House. There are only two points that I wish to raise. Firstly, the right of people to create oral trusts still remains. The piece of legislation before us only deals with trusts that have been created by way of a document. Secondly, I want to say that as a result of the tremendous case law that has developed in regard to trusts, we have very valuable precedents that have been set which our courts will still follow and to which they are bound.

All this Bill really does is to regulate those areas where some certainty was needed and I believe the Bill before us contains those certainties. As my hon benchmate has indicated, we obviously favour and support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I feel I am duty-bound to respond to a few issues raised by hon members. The hon member for Reservoir Hills raised the issue of personnel in the Master’s office. Our legal adviser and regular assistant to the Standing Committee on Justice, Mr Rudman, sent me a note that reads as follows:

I think that should suffice, as I have already indicated during the discussion on my Vote that the Master’s Office is up to date with its work. This deserves our appreciation. Nevertheless, the matter will be monitored and the necessary steps will be taken to avoid any backlog. I do not expect a considerable increase in work as far as the Master’s Office is concerned and I do not think there will be such an influx that we will need to dramatically increase the personnel over a short period—I do not visualise that.

The hon the Minister of the Budget discussed the provisions in the Bill which may relate to what he calls religious trusts. He sees in the Bill an alleviation of and a solution to their problems.

I have studied the Bill very briefly with a view to either agreeing or disagreeing with him, and it seems to me that he has clauses 13 and 14 in mind. I quote clause 13:

1. (a) hampers the achievement of the objects of the founder; or
2. (b) prejudices the interests of beneficiaries; or
3. (c) is in conflict with the public interest,

In other words, it is possible that application may be made if, through some interpretation of the terms of the trust, in the opinion of the court the original objectives of the trust are not met. In this case the court may intervene. Of course, it is also possible to vary the trust instrument. I quote from clause 14:

I think it should be brought to the attention of the hon the Minister of the Budget that he should be careful in interpreting the Bill in solving his particular and peculiar problem. Nevertheless there are so many lawyers around that he should be able to solve his problem within a short time.

Finally, I want to say to my colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, that I shall consider his advice. Personally, I have great faith in the functioning of the Law Society as a controlling body. It is an autonomous body composed of responsible people, and I do not think they have shirked their duties in the past. If any lawyer is guilty of improper conduct, then they will take the necessary steps and have him removed from the roll. Therefore I would advise my hon friend to pass his information or complaint on to the Law Society. Alternatively he said he has given the address of the Law Society to the complainants and perhaps the matter should be left there for the moment. I do not know how recently this has occurred. Perhaps he could consider re-emphasising to his constituents the position of the Law Society, in which I have great confidence.

Again, I do not think the hon member will be guilty of collusion, as has been suggested by the hon member for Camperdown. I do not think that by keeping the information to himself he will be guilty of collusion. I gather that the information is not prima facie indicative of a criminal offence. I think he has given him the right advice.

I shall take another look at his speech and consider whether I have a duty to carry out his request, namely to see whether the administration of estates has been properly conducted. I should prefer not to embark on a course which would entail more and more duties for the Department of Justice, whereas we have other institutions, such as the lawyers’ controlling body, to look after their affairs. I know that the Masters of the Supreme Court are taking very strict action, especially as of late, against executors and attorneys acting on behalf of executors who do not do their duty.

On paging through some epigrams, I came across this very interesting witticism: A lawyer is a man who is supposedly learned and who rescues your estate from your enemies and keeps it himself! [Interjections.]

I do not think hon colleagues present will think that I have demeaned their profession. I have mentioned this merely as an aside, because I was really coming to another witticism which is more topical and which, in fact, is one of the very few things that have been said this afternoon that really applies to the Bill. You will forgive me, Sir, for saying the following in passing: Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust. That is my final word of advice to the House. [Interjections.]

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the Central Energy Fund Act, 1977, provides that the affairs of CEF (Proprietary) Limited be managed and controlled by a board of directors to which, amongst others, two officers of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs must be appointed. As a result of the establishment of the National Energy Council in terms of the Energy Act, 1987, the Energy Branch of the department was abolished with effect from 1 April 1988.

The personnel are seconded to the National Energy Council until such time as positions can be offered to them within the organisational structure of the council. In order to still use the expertise of the personnel, clause 1 of the Bill determines that a member of the personnel of the National Energy Council must be appointed as a director of CEF (Proprietary) Limited and that he will receive no additional remuneration for such service.

*As regards clause 2, since 1 July 1987 the levy to the benefit of the Central Energy Fund has been incorporated as an element of the fuel levy and claimed from all consumers of diesel. From 1 April 1988 all levies with the exception of the Equalisation Fund levy will be unearmarked over and claimed as a fuel levy.

It might even once again become necessary to claim directly to the benefit of the Central Energy Fund and this power is therefore kept only in the legislation.

Clauses 3 and 4 go without saying and need no further explanation.

Mr Chairman, this is a very short Bill and it is a consequential one. It deals firstly with the technical aspect of changing the designation of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

It also allows for one officer instead of two in this department, who possesses a knowledge of crude oil supply and fuel oil matters. This officer will also be a director of CEF (Proprietary) Limited but no extra remuneration will be given for his services.

The Bill imposes a levy on all consumers of petrol, distillate fuel en residual fuel oil, to the benefit of the Central Energy Fund.

I have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, as rightly pointed out by the hon member, this Bill deals with non-controversial aspects. I, too, would like to lend my support to the Bill.

Briefly, I would like to highlight the fact that the National Energy Council was established as a result of the Energy Act, Act No 42 of 1987. The personnel to serve on the National Energy Council will be drawn from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. To retain the expertise of personnel from the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, the Bill provides that a member be appointed to the Central Energy Fund, without any remuneration. Since 1 July 1987 the benefit of the Central Energy Fund has been incorporated as an element of a fuel levy fund, instituted by the Minister of Finance. Provision is made that the fund levy be examined by the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology.

We support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP have no problem in supporting the Bill, because as the hon members for North Western Transvaal and Havenside quite correctly said, this Bill is non-controversial. It is a completely technical Bill, which regulates the affairs of the Central Energy Fund. On account of that, I certainly have no problem in supporting the Bill.

I would like to take the opportunity of complimenting the hon the Minister for reacting so very quickly to what appeared in the newspapers last week concerning the price of petrol. As hon members will recall, there was speculation in the Press that due to the fact that the lead quantity in petrol was to be reduced, the price of petrol was, in consequence, to be increased. I would like to express my gratitude to the hon the Minister for reacting so very quickly to that speculation.

With these few words, as I have indicated, we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is very nice if friends can be unanimous about things like this in important technical matters. I wish to thank the hon members for North Western Transvaal, Havenside and Springfield for supporting this Bill, and I wish to thank the hon member for Springfield for his very kind words. I do not think I deserve the praise, but I will convey it to my department so that they take note of what he said.

With these words, I thank hon members very much.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the objects of the proposed amending Bill are primarily directed at the establishment of a Council for Nuclear Safety as a juristic person to act independently of the Atomic Energy Corporation of South Africa, in order to control the licensing of nuclear activities in the Republic of South Africa. Initially, when the Atomic Energy Board was established in 1948, the board was controlled by the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1948, and empowered to control the prospecting and mining of certain prescribed material and the production and sale of radio-active nuclides.

As a result of research undertaken by the board in the field of nuclear or atomic energy, the Safari 1 reactor was commissioned during 1965 and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation established in 1970 to enrich and process source material with a view to producing nuclear or atomic energy. A licensing function in respect of those installations was performed by the Atomic Energy Board in accordance with the prescriptions of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963.

It is noteworthy that the Atomic Energy Board, which was initially a statutory board, tasked to process and enrich source material in order to produce nuclear or atomic energy on behalf of the State, was also the controlling authority that controlled the licensing of nuclear installations and other prescribed activities in the nuclear field in the Republic of South Africa.

With the establishment of the Atomic Energy Corporation, under the provisions of the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982, the prescriptions contained in the Atomic Energy Act, the Uranium Enrichment Act and the Nuclear Installations Acts were consolidated and amended, so as to vest the AEC with the power to enrich uranium and to produce nuclear or atomic energy on behalf of the State and in addition thereto, as a licensing authority to control the safe operation of nuclear installations.

The AEC simultaneously engaged itself in the operation of nuclear installations, whilst it also acted as the licensing authority for the nuclear industry in the Republic.

The Government was already at that stage aware of the undesirability of a practice whereby a State-controlled corporation, such as the AEC, was simultaneously involved in a regulatory control function in regard to the licensing of nuclear installations while it engaged itself into the operation of such installations. However, the Government decided at that stage that as Koeberg was in the process of being licensed, it was inadvisable to transfer the licensing function in the middle of the licensing process to another authority. It is now timeous to do so, and the Government, acting upon the recommendations of the Atomic Energy Corporation, decided to separate the said functions at this stage.

Provision is therefore made in the amending Bill for the establishment of the Council for Nuclear Safety as an independent juristic person, to take over the licensing functions in regard to nuclear installations from the corporation and to control the use, possession, production, processing and reprocessing, conveyance and disposal of hazardous nuclear material in the Republic.

I pertinently wish to draw the attention of hon members to the fact that before the introduction of this Bill, the installations which the State operated via the agency of the corporation at Velindaba and Pelindaba were not subject to licensing by the Council for Nuclear Safety. Notwithstanding that, and in order to ensure the safe operation of those installations, the corporation complied with the recommendations of the Council for Nuclear Safety in regard to the operating conditions relating to health and safety.

*The amending Bill now provides for the licensing, by the Council for Nuclear Safety, of those nuclear activities which the State is conducting via the corporation on the same footing as any other enterprise conducting those activities. The council is vested with the authority to issue, amend or withdraw licences in regard to the safe operation of nuclear installations and the use of sites for purposes connected with nuclear installations and to enforce compliance with the conditions laid down in such licences.

A further important matter which deserves the attention of the hon members is the insertion of a right of appeal to the Minister against certain decisions of the Council for Nuclear Safety in favour of aggrieved persons.

†In order to protect the interests of the State, prescriptions are contained in the amending Bill whereby the possession and the carrying out of certain activities in respect of source material, restricted material and special nuclear material, the fabrication of nuclear fuel and the production of nuclear or atomic energy in the Republic, are prohibited, except under the written authority of the Minister.

The Council for Nuclear Safety is vested by way of the amending Bill with all those powers which it requires to enable it to perform its duties.

Provision is made for the appointment of a chairman and a vice-chairman by the Minister. The council is vested with the authority to appoint an executive committee for the council to establish committees which it deems necessary to assist it in the performance of its functions and to appoint personnel. The funds of the council consist of money appropriated by Parliament and fees which licencees are obliged to pay to the council under the provisions of the amending Bill.

The hon members will agree with me that the amending Bill which is proposed will contribute to a safe and effective nuclear industry in the Republic. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the AEC and the Council for Nuclear Safety and their personnel not only for their contributions to the amending Bill, but also for the excellent contributions rendered by each in this field to this most important industry. Furthermore I extend my appreciation to the Standing Committee for the thorough work which they did in regard to this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill amends the Nuclear Energy Act of 1982, providing for the establishment of a juristic person as the Council for Nuclear Safety. The council will take control of the corporation and safeguard the public against nuclear damage and control the licencing of certain new nuclear activities. The objects of the corporation are very clear if one looks at section 2 on page 5 of the Bill:

This Bill further empowers the corporation to delegate its powers, duties and functions to the chief executive officer or any employee of the corporation of the subsidiary company. Any persons could appeal to the Minister against certain council decisions.

I therefore have no hesitation in proposing that this Bill be accepted.

Mr Chairman, the Bill itself is a very good one in that it makes provision for the establishment of a council for nuclear safety. One of the important aspects of this council will be to see to the safeguarding of the public against nuclear damage. I think that is very essential in this country as it has been proven to be in other parts of the world, where damage has been caused and lives were lost by negligence. I believe the council itself will play a rather important role, even in the issuing of licences and the control over nuclear licences will be very important in that the council itself will be responsible. Such licences would only be issued on merit provided the licencees could assure the council of complete safety of the public interest.

The other important aspect of this Bill is to contain the disposal of hazardous nuclear material, otherwise it is most certainly going to cause nuclear damage. We on this side of the House have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP are not represented on the Committee on Mineral and Energy Affairs as a component of this House, but most certainly the PFP is represented as members of that committee as a component of the House of Assembly. I have been assured by my colleagues that this Bill was very thoroughly canvassed and debated in the standing committee. I am aware that my colleagues in the PFP have fully supported this particular Bill, since the PFP is committed to the advancement of nuclear technology in this country. Therefore we have no problem supporting this Bill, and we do in fact support it.

I should like to raise an issue with the hon the Minister with regard to nuclear matters, since this Bill deals with that. As the hon the Minister is aware, some ten days ago there was a news item that appeared in our local newspapers about the possibility of looking at the North Coast of Natal with a view to establishing some kind of a nuclear station somewhere along the North Coast of Natal.

As I said, we have no problems with the establishment of nuclear stations in this country. AU that I want to tell the hon the Minister is that he may establish as many nuclear stations as he wishes, but he must not establish them on the Natal North Coast.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for North Western Transvaal for supporting this Bill. I just want to point out to him that he quoted from the Bill the objective of the Corporation and not of the Council for Nuclear Safety. I think the reason why that part was included in this Bill is to delete the words, “including the licensing thereof’. In other words the licensing authority has been taken away from the Atomic Energy Corporation. I just want to make that point clear so that there is no misunderstanding.

I want to thank the hon member for Havenside. I think the point the hon member made is of great importance and that is that the authority to license and the authority to control the safety of nuclear activities in the country should be vested in one organisation. I think that is what this Bill is achieving. In the past it was vested in two separate organisations and we had the experience that one could find some conflict of interest. I think this Bill removes that possibility now so that the authority is vested in one organisation only. I want to thank the hon member for supporting the Bill.

I want to thank the hon member for Springfield for supporting the Bill. He raised a very interesting point that can lead to a lot of speculation. I do not want to say when this will happen, but I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a nuclear station will be built in this country in the future. However, that it will be built is a fact and I think it is of the utmost importance that when we decide to do so we should decide well in advance where the most suitable site would be for the erection of such a power station.

I think a lot of matters have to be accommodated and considered with regard to the cooling aspects of such a power station, the environmental impact and the density of population. I think there is a team at the moment that is looking at all possible sites, and I want to emphasise all possible sites.

Therefore if the team is looking for a site along the North Coast—I am not aware of the fact that they are doing so—I do not think that it is acceptable or that it can be taken as a fact that a power station will not be built in that area. I think one should be able to say with a very clear mind whenever one takes a final decision that one has examined every possible site in the country and after having evaluated each and every site the final conclusion is that site A will be the eventual site and will be the best.

I do not want to belabour the point but my personal feeling is that the site on the Natal North Coast will be a bad site. I do not think we should even consider building a nuclear power station in that part of the world in the near future. There are other parts of South Africa which are more suited for nuclear power generation than the North Coast of Natal. However, I think we must give them the opportunity to complete their investigations and to present their report for a final decision. I want to thank the hon member for bringing it to my notice. I will look into the matter to see how far they have progressed with their investigations.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.